Sec. 13. Certified copy of the written statement produced in Court - - Admitted as evidence in earlier suits - Practice of the presiding judges in not making endorsements on exhibits as required under Rule deprecated.- Previous judgments between inter parties was admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as a "transaction" in which a right to property was "asserted" and "recognised". . - [Raman Pillai Krishna Pillai and others Vs. Kumaran Parameswaran and others. 2002 (1) KLT SN 57 Page No.48, (K.A.Mohamed Shafi (J)]
Sec. 27- Evidence of hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto - Recovery made from public place from public place accessible to others - Admissible in evidence. Indian Penal Code - Sec. 341 - 2nd accused was holding the deceased while holding the deceased while the 1st accused inflicted the injuries - Accused committed the offence . [Kishore Kumar vs State.2001(1) KLJ 306.J.B.Koshy & R.Rajendra Babu (J&J)]
Sec. 35 - Offences under Sec. 363 & 376- Proof of age - Entry Birth and Death Register will show that only a child was born -The identity has to be established by other evidence . [Suresh Babu vs State of Kerala . 2001 (1) KLT 80 .N.Krishnan Nair (J&J)]
Sec. 61 - "Muthavally' is competent to issue marriage certificate in respect of marriages took place before his taking charge. [Abdul Khader vs Usmankutty . 2001(1) KLJ.198 = 2001 (1) KLT 569 . D.Sreedevi (J)]
Secs. 63 - Will - The overall burden of proving the will lies on those who propound it, such burden is general, discharged by showing that will was duly executed and that the testator had testamentary capacity. [Joseph Thomas vs. Jose. 1999(2) KLT SN 61 Page 56.S.Marimuthu (J) ]
Sec. 65B - Decoding of votes - Procedure to be followed
explained by expert - Not disputed -[T.A.Ahammed Kabeer
Vs. A.A.Azeez and others, 2002 (1) KLT 719. . (M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Secs. 91 & 92 proviso -in order to get the benefit of the proviso there should be clear evidence to establish the fact that the sale deed was intended only as a security. [ Moosa vs. Moideen. 2001(1) KLT 183.P.K.Balasubramanyan (J) ]
Sec. 92 - Agreement to sell property is not requuired be in writing - Admission of oral evidence to vary the terms of contract admissible - Prohibition applies only to contracts required to be reduced to in writing by statute [Mohammed Shereef vs Soma Rajan . ILR 2001(1) Ker 47.M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Sec. 112 - Legitimacy - Non access can be established not merely by positive or direct evidence, it can be proved undoubtedly by any other physical fact by evidence either direct or circumstantial which is relevant to the issue though as the presumption of legitimacy is highly favoured by law. [Madhavi Amma Bhavani Amma vs Velu Pillai and ors. 2000(2) KLJ 997. D.Sreedevi (J)}
Sec. 114 - Presumption - Mere putting of
signature does not amount to admission of execution of the document.
Ordinarily , signature means putting one's name or any other mark to
identify a person making the mark. But when a word "signature"
is attributed with regard to the written document, which creates
obligation on the person signing it, it can only mean signing the document
after document is prepared and completed. There, the signature is put to
show that the person who signed has agreed to terms and conditions of that
document. The intention with regard to the acknowledgement of the term
should be there. When the person signs the same, then only it can be said
that the person has executed the same. When a person says that he put the
signature on blank paper that does not mean that he had admittedly
executed the document. A general proposition cannot be laid down that the
burden should be on the person, who has subscribed his signature to the
blank paper. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to
get relief. Decision given in 1990(1) KLT 456 = 1990(2) KLJ 115
= ILR 2001 (1) Ker 413 - putting burden on the defendant have not laid down
correct law. [Kuttadan Muhammed vs Kuttatdan Velayudhan2001(1) KLJ 161 = 2001(1) KLT 392.S.Sanakarsubban &A.Lekshmikutty (J&J)]
Sec. 114 - Presumption is rebuttable - Defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence - If the defendant discharges his initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbably or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. [C.T.Josph vs I.V.Philip . 2001 (1) KLJ 654 ..S.Sankarasubban & A.Lekshmikutty (J&J)
Secs. 154, 161 - Can a party to a civil suit request the court for permission to cross-examine the witness cited by himself ? Procedure to be adopted explained - Court is to endorse at the relevant portion of the deposition of the witness, within brackets, the fact that the counsel for the witness sought for permission to cross examine the witness at that stage and that the permission was granted. Further portion of the deposition may be recorded under the heading "cross examination". If however the court, on a consideration of the relevant aspects, deems it fit to deny the permission sough for under Sec. 154 it would be expected to record briefly, reasons for such decision (also in the deposition with brackets) and to proceed with the recording of the further deposition, if any. [Thankamani vs Prabhakaran. 2001(1) KLT 776. M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Will - Registered - Proof of execution - Question whether a person would go to the Sub-registry or whether the sub-registrar should be brought to the residence of a person for registration, will depend upon the circumstances available. Merely because at one stage, one option was exercised, it does not mean that on another ocassion the same practice should be followed. Clear evidence of the sub registrar with regard to due registration and affixing of the signatures in his presence at the time of registration removes all possible doubts in the matter. [ K.Sarojini vs Koottakil Ponnutty .2001(1) KLJ 665. P.K.Balasubramanyan & M.R.Hariharan Nair (J&J)]