K. Laxmanan V/s Thekkayil Padmini & Ors.

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2008-12-03
Case No: 7082 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21251 of 2006)
Case Type: Appeal (Civil)
Judge Name: Tarun Chatterjee & Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Subject: Law of Evidence
Statutes / Acts: Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 69; Indian Registration Act, 1908 ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 6 Rule 1
Bench Strength: Double Bench
Advocate: K. Rajeev (P) & A. Raghunath (R)
State of Appellant(s): Kerala
History of Case No: final Judgment and Order dated 28/9/2006 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in SA No. 183 of 1992 (E)
Equal Citation Details :

 2009MPLJ525(SC), 2009 106 RD610, 2008(15)SCALE551, (2009)1SCC354, AIR2009SC951, 2009 (74) ALR 650, 2009(2)ALT1(SC), 2009 1 AWC(Supp)550SC, 2009GLH(1)734, 2009GLH(734)1, ILR2009(1)Kerala225, JT2008(13)SC380, 2009(1)KLT29(SC), 2009-3-LW854, (2009)4MLJ681(SC)

Case Note / Description :

In the present case, the person who was called to prove the document himself said that he had not signed as an identifying witness in respect of Ext. B2 and moreover he stated that he did not know about the signature in Ex. B2. The contents of the document were not proved as was required to be done. Taking all the factors as stated hereinbefore into consideration and also noticing the fact that execution of the Will, which was executed on the same day as that of the Gift Deed, we hold that even the said document is found to be of suspicious nature and therefore the said deed is also held to be not duly proved. .Consequently, no interference is called for to the findings recorded by both the appellate courts below to the effect that the appellant has failed to prove that the said deed of gift was executed by deceased Chathu. That apart both the appellate courts below have found that both the documents namely the Deed of Gift as also Deed of Will suffer from suspicious circumstances. The said findings are concurrent findings of fact which should not be normally interfered with by the Court by exercising the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

 

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)