Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn More
50 Late Kalu Gapliya (Through Legal Heirs) vs. Seeta Nathu and others
AIR 2023 (NOC) 820 (MP)(HC)
Date of Order: 8th August, 2023
Evidence — Land Dispute — Ownership — Adoption Deed between Petitioner and father of Respondents — Thumb impression of Respondents suggesting consent — Denial — Application in Trial court for verification of thumb impression by expert - Rejection of application — Failure to show expert aware of thumb impression of Respondents as mandated — Thumb impression unique — Cannot be forged easily — Rejection of application erroneous. [S. 45, 47, Indian Evidence Act, 1872].
FACTS
The Petitioner and Respondent were involved in a legal dispute over land ownership. The Petitioner claimed that he had absolute ownership in the suit property and as such, the recordings of the Respondent’s name in the land revenue records were illegal. The Petitioner, in the Trial court, relied upon an adoption deed entered between him and the erstwhile owner of the suit property (father of Respondents) in order to prove absolute ownership of the suit property. The Petitioner further claimed that the adoption deed consisted of thumb impressions of the Respondents
