TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revision petitioners challenge witness cross-examination in partition suit; High Court orders fresh consideration. Ex parte injunction order set aside.</h1> In CRP (PD) No. 1200 of 2009, the revision petitioners sought to reject the right of the first respondent to cross-examine a witness in a partition suit. ... - Issues Involved:1. Right to cross-examine a witness (CRP (PD) No. 1200 of 2009).2. Grant of interim injunction (CRP (PD) No. 1273 of 2009).Summary:CRP (PD) No. 1200 of 2009:Background Facts: The suit in O.S. No. 469 of 2004 was filed by the first respondent for partition of the suit property into seven equal shares. The property was purchased in the name of Janakiammal by her husband K. Venkatesalu. The plaintiff contended that the will dated 8.8.2002, allegedly executed by Janakiammal, was a forgery. The defendants contested the suit, claiming the property belonged to Janakiammal and was purchased with her stridhana property.Interlocutory Application: The revision petitioners filed I.A. No. 608 of 2008 to reject the right of the first respondent to cross-examine the fifth respondent (D.W.1), arguing that there was no adverse interest between them. The first respondent countered, asserting conflicting interests. The trial Judge dismissed the application, allowing the first respondent to cross-examine D.W.1.Examination of Witnesses: According to Chapter X of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cross-examination is a right given to the adverse party. The trial court must consider the entire pleadings to determine adverse interest. The fifth respondent's separate suit (O.S. No. 980 of 2009) and its pleadings were also relevant to this determination.The Dispute: The main dispute involved the acquisition of the property and the validity of the will. The fifth respondent's pleadings supported the first respondent's case regarding these issues. The trial Judge's decision was based on the written statement but did not consider the subsequent suit's pleadings. Therefore, the matter requires fresh consideration by the trial court.Disposal: The order in I.A. No. 608 of 2008 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration. The civil revision petition is allowed.CRP (PD) No. 1273 of 2009:Background Facts: The respondent filed O.S. No. 980 of 2009 for an injunction against the revision petitioners, claiming the property belonged to his father, K. Venkatesalu, and was in possession of the legal heirs after his death. The defendants allegedly created a forged will and mortgaged the property.Prima Facie Case: The trial Judge granted an ex parte injunction without indicating the materials considered for prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The Supreme Court mandates that reasons must be recorded to ensure clarity and enable appellate review.Disposal: The order in I.A. No. 1041 of 2009 is set aside. The trial Judge is directed to consider the application on merits and dispose of it within thirty days. The civil revision petition is allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
