Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1980 (4) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ( 3. ) The petitioners contested the two suits and denied the title and ownership of the plaintiffs. The petitioners asserted that they were themselves the owners of the property in dispute. They also denied having been served with any notice. ( 4. ) The trial court accepted the version of facts as given by the petitioners and dismissed the two suits, ( 5. ) The landlords filed Revisions under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and the same have been allowed. The learned District Judge allowing the Revisions has decreed the plaintiffs-respondents' suits for the ejectment of the petitioners as well as for recovery of arrears of rent etc. ( 6. ) Dr . R. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners has challeng .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Notaries Act. In the present case, the Notary Public who has authenticated the power in question is of Pakistan, and inasmuch as it had not been proved by any evidence that there was any reciprocity between India and Pakistan in that behalf, the Notary Public authenticating the power, could not be regarded as a Notary Public within the meaning of Section 85 of the Evidence Act, and consequently the presumption under Section 85 of the Act could not apply. ( 10. ) In support counsel placed reliance on two decisions, namely, D. Sardar Singh v. Seth Pissumal Harbhagwandas Bankers (AIR 1958 Andh Pra 107, para 5) and AIR 1970 Manipur 57. ( 11. ) Counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand urged that there was absolutely no warrant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by Notaries Public functioning in other countries. I find that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is of little assistance in resolving the controversy. The case which has considered the question raised before me in some depth is the one reported in re; K.K. Ray (Private) Ltd. (AIR 1967 Cal 636). In this case, Mr. Justice P. B. Mukherjea (as he then was) traced the entire history of the institution of Notaries Public as it existed from ancient times in different countries. The learned Judge after a very profound treatment of the subject came to the conclusion that it would not be correct to limit the application of Section 85 of the Evidence Act only to the Notaries as denned in the Notaries Act. In fact, the learned Judge suggest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the meaning of Section 85 of the Act, and that it would lead to serious difficulties if the other interpretation namely that Section 85 of the Evidence Act is limited only to documents authenticated by Notary Public of this country, was accepted. The learned Judge deciding that case has followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh (AIR 1971 SC 761). In the said decision, the Supreme Court accepted a document which was authenticated before a Notary Public of California, U.S.A. The Supreme Court case applied Section 85 without reference to the provisions of the Notaries Act. In my view, the decision of the Supreme Court is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision is binding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as fully justified in reversing the finding of the trial court. The finding of the trial court was based on a consideration of only a part of the evidence on record, ignoring substantial pieces of evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The finding of the trial court on this question was not according to law and was, therefore, rightly set aside. ( 19. ) There is no merit in either of these petitions, which are, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ( 20. ) The petitioners are, however, granted four months' time to vacate the accommodation. The petitioners will hand over vacant possession of the accommodation in dispute within this period of four months to the plaintiffs landlords. The petitioners will pay four mont .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates