Muhammed Davood Vs. Hafsath
Citation : AIR 2010 Kerla 21
Evidence act Section 3. Suit for recovery of money and ornaments handed over to bride at the time of marriage. Court cannot insist on documentary evidence to prove transaction. It is not possible to look at photographs and ascertain precise quantum of ornaments. But oral evidence of bride and her father getting support broadly from such document like photograph taken on date of marriage can be accepted. The transaction was between spouses. A Court unless it is naive and hyper technical should not in such circumstances insist on documentary evidence to prove the transaction. Section 3 of Evidence act which must be reckoned as the Bible of court of facts and demands that court must adopt the the standard of a prudent person informed of all the realities ok raw life. A prudent person cannot expect that there will be documents to prove such payments made by father in law to his daughter in law or son in law.
Print Page
Citation : AIR 2010 Kerla 21
Evidence act Section 3. Suit for recovery of money and ornaments handed over to bride at the time of marriage. Court cannot insist on documentary evidence to prove transaction. It is not possible to look at photographs and ascertain precise quantum of ornaments. But oral evidence of bride and her father getting support broadly from such document like photograph taken on date of marriage can be accepted. The transaction was between spouses. A Court unless it is naive and hyper technical should not in such circumstances insist on documentary evidence to prove the transaction. Section 3 of Evidence act which must be reckoned as the Bible of court of facts and demands that court must adopt the the standard of a prudent person informed of all the realities ok raw life. A prudent person cannot expect that there will be documents to prove such payments made by father in law to his daughter in law or son in law.
No comments:
Post a Comment