https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273085 Counterclaims under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC operate as cross-suits and were maintainable because no exclusion was sought and the pleadings were treated as duly raised and proved. Section 73 of the Evidence Act permits judicial comparison of disputed and admitted signatures; the party relying on disputed receipts and letters bears the burden of proving execution and underlying payments. The signatures did not tally, so the alleged further payments were not established. Earlier rent-control determinations and the party's own correspondence operated through estoppel and issue finality, preventing reopening of settled matters. No substantial question of law justified interference with concurrent factual findings in second appeal. en-us Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jun 2018 10:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273085 Counterclaims under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC operate as cross-suits and were maintainable because no exclusion was sought and the pleadings were treated as duly raised and proved. Section 73 of the Evidence Act permits judicial comparison of disputed and admitted signatures; the party relying on disputed receipts and letters bears the burden of proving execution and underlying payments. The signatures did not tally, so the alleged further payments were not established. Earlier rent-control determinations and the party's own correspondence operated through estoppel and issue finality, preventing reopening of settled matters. No substantial question of law justified interference with concurrent factual findings in second appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273085