সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Plaintiff Cannot Win by Highlighting Defendant's Weakness
The plaintiff has to succeed on his own legs
and he cannot succeed on the weak- ness of the defendant's case if there be any.
The Appellate Division held that the
Appellate Court found that the special character of the Nirupanpatra dated
17.03.1982 was that the daughter was included, but in the Nirupanpatra dated
31.01.1973, the daughter was not included. The Appellate Court further held
that the executor had every right to execute and register the Nirupanpatra on
17.03.1982 though earlier he executed another Nirupanpatra dated 31.01.1973.
The Appellate Court further found that the plaintiff as PW I clearly admitted
in his cross-examination that he could not say whether his father executed the
Nirupanpatra as claimed by the defendants. Therefore, the above statement of
the plaintiff does not prove that his fa- ther did not execute the Nirupanpatra
dated 13.07.1982. The Appellate Court further found that on behalf of the
defendants, de- fendant No. 1 examined himself as DW1 who categorically stated
that his father ex- ecuted the Nirupanpatra voluntarily and that his sister had
no residence to live in and another witness, DW3 who figured as a witness in
the Nirupanpatra categorically stated that Naresh Chandra executed the
Nirupanpatra in sound mind. The Appellate Court also noticed that DW 2 another
wit- ness to the Nirupanpatra stated that the fa- ther of the plaintiff
executed the Nirupan- patra voluntarily. The Appellate Court con- cluded that
the Nirupanpatra in question was executed and registered by the father of the
plaintiff, Naresh Chandra voluntarily and willingly. The findings of the Appel-
late Court are based on correct appreciation of the evidence.
Sailendu Bikash Chakraborty-Vs.- Sree
Harendra Lal Chakraborty and others. (Civil) 10 ALR (AD) 316-319
The plaintiff, who have to prove their case
and they cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendant's case-It is the
settled principle of law that it is the plaintiff, who have to prove their case
and they cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendant's case, if there be
any, and in the instant case the plaintiffs having failed to prove their case,
the defendants cannot be harassed and put to suffering specially when the suit
was filed any back in the year 1968. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
Jasiron Nesa and another -Vs. Mst. Hamida
Bewa and others (Civil) 9 ALR (AD) 50-53
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
