. of document No. 1, xerox copy of the unregistered deed of rental agreement of 07.07.1989 The present appeal is brought against this order.6. Mr. R.T Doraisamy, lawyer by training for the P. resulting from his own omission or negligence ». In the above circumstances, a xerox copy of the unregistsed rental agreement article dated 07.07.1989 cannot be obtained as evidence, let alone for secondary purposes.15. In. Coimbatore refused to mark the xerox copy of the unregistered rental contract article dated 07.07.1989 by the plaintiff at the time of his cross-examination.2. The short facts that lead to the. . by Mr.
Veerapa Padayachi. Subsequent courts have ruled that Ex. A.1 of 15.07.1981 is not admissible at all as evidence, since it is only a copy of Xerox. However, a Xerox copy is . Ex.A.1 is a Xerox copy of the original unregistered partition document, it is admissible as evidence because the primary proof, i.e. the original unregistered part. Act of division of 15.07.1981 Obviously, the said act of division is Ex.A.1, if the applicant himself declares that it is an unregreg registered document, the said document is not admissible as evidence. You can take legal action for the concrete execution of the contract in accordance with the agreement concluded in 1997, its defense of unfavorable possession is not durable. 15.
If the defendant himself has refused to execute the affidavit in question and the applicant has not informed the legal representatives of the deceased Abdul Kareem Sab or any other party in whose possession the original document, if any, may be present, the applicant may not be allowed to provide the Xerox copy in question as secondary evidence. The Bombay High Court ruled in the Sau case. Parvatabai B. Raimande (died by L.Rs.) and Ors. c. Smt. Anjanabai G. Hiware and Anr. reports in AIR 2009 Bom 1264, so: . Court in these written applications. 5. The applicants` experienced lawyer claims that the initial agreement of 4.10.2008 with the first defendant exists.
The Xerox copy is with the petitioners. Therefore, the petition. has made it very clear that the mere marking of the xerox copy of the agreement does not amount to justifying the applicant`s cause, all the surrounding circumstances must be taken into account to get to the right and. The petitioners wanted to create the basis for secondary evidence, that is, the Xerox copy of the agreement that was available to them. Both actions were dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners are opposite. . MARKING OF THE XEROX COPY UNREGISTER SALES CONTRACT DTD:23.12.2011 AS E.G. D-1 EMPTY ANNEXURE-M DURING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PW-1 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE OF HON`BLE CITY A.
of 22.7.2016, which marks the Xerox copy of the unregistsed purchase agreement dated 23.12.2011 as Ex.D.1, although the plaintiffs` lawyer objected that the Xerox copy. The marking of the xerox copy of the unregreg registered purchase contract of 23.12.2011 as Ex.D1 as part of the proof of PW.1 is incorrect and contradicts the registered material. . . .