TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs had proved a permanent grant of britti and a charge on the estate; (ii) Whether family tradition and hearsay evidence were admissible to establish the claimed grant and charge.
Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs had proved a permanent grant of britti and a charge on the estate.
Analysis: The evidence showed only that an annual payment had long been made and that the plaintiffs had performed worship and service of the deities. There was no reliable documentary proof of any original permanent grant or of any charge created on the estate, and the surrounding circumstances did not justify a presumption of a lost grant. The continued payments were more naturally explained as pious continuance by successive holders of the estate.
Conclusion: The permanent grant and the charge were not proved.
Issue (ii): Whether family tradition and hearsay evidence were admissible to establish the claimed grant and charge.
Analysis: The evidence of family tradition was hearsay and did not fall within any statutory exception to the exclusionary rule. The governing evidence statute was complete, and the Court had no dispensing power to admit evidence merely because it might assist in reaching the truth. The earlier statement that such evidence could be received if essential for truth was rejected as erroneous.
Conclusion: The hearsay and tradition evidence was inadmissible.
Final Conclusion: The claim failed for want of admissible proof, and the decree in favour of the plaintiffs could not stand.
Ratio Decidendi: When a statute comprehensively regulates evidence, courts cannot admit hearsay outside its express exceptions, and a permanent grant or charge cannot be presumed without legally admissible evidence supporting it.
TaxTMI 
