Category: Evidence Act

Admitted facts—Need not be proved—The Court was entitled to draw an inference that the same had been admitted. Partition—Family settlement—Not given its full effect—Finding that by purported settlement deed, joint family property had not been partitioned by meets and bounds—Finding held to be proper.

2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1651 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 7061 of…

Dying Declaration—Recorded by Head constable and not by a Magistrate—Admissible. Dying Declaration—Not in question and answer form but in narrative—Admissible. Recording of Statement—Murder—Non recording of statement of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C.—Testimony of witnesses —Admissible.

  2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1460 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur Criminal Appeal No. 244 of…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.