Evidence Act - Admissibility of previous depositions -2015 S.C.(1976) MSKLAWREPORTS

Evidence Act - Admissibility of previous depositions - Apex court held that
(i) The admissions by the 3rd defendant were substan-
 tive  evidence of the facts admitted and  such  admissions,
 duly proved, were admissible evidence irrespective of wheth-
 er the party making them appeared in the witness box or not,
 and  whether  that  party when appearing as  a witness  was
 confronted  with those statements in case a  statement con-
 trary  to those admissions was made. They were  taken into
 consideration against the 3rd defendant and not against  the
 2nd defendant. [975 H, 976 A-B]
 (ii)  There is no requirement of the Evidence  Act that
 unless the  admissions were adverse to his  interests when
 made,  they  could not be read against  the  person  making
 them. [976 F]
 (iii) The contention that the evidence of the admissions
 is admissible only in terms of s. 33 of the Evidence Act was
 untenable  because  that section deals with  statements  of
 persons  who  cannot  be called as witnesses  and  does  not
 restrict  or override the provisions relating to  admissions
 in the Evidence Act. [977 A-C] -2015 S.C.(1976) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS