Nikunj
19 November 2013 at 18:34
Sir, I have give a chq. of Rs.7.5 lacs to Mr. A for purchase of house but afterwards we find that there is some family problems are there then we said we want to cancel the deal. Then he gave us 7.5 lacs which was return in mar.13 then after he give me promises that he will pay the money at the earliest but till date he has not paid me the money and he was run away from his house also. can you guide me what is legal procedure so that i can get back my money from the cheaters.
Regards Nikunj
ashok khare
19 November 2013 at 14:41
Sir as per your direction I am stating facts ;
Mr. A and Ors are the Tenants. Now their premises redeveloped by the Builder. After redevelopment Mr. A has been allotted the Flat since he was the Tenant.
Query : i) Whether Stamp Duty is applicable when title is not transfer?
ii) Whether Mr. A has to pay the Stamp Duty or not?
There is no clause for stamp duty in Agreement.
If Stamp Duty not paid then what happen?
It is requested kindly provide the answer.
Thanks.
ashok khare
19 November 2013 at 13:30
Mr. A and Ors are the Tenants. Now their premises redeveloped. After redevelopment Mr. A has been allotted the Flat since he was the Tenant.
Query : i) Whether Mr. A has to pay the Stamp Duty or not?
ii) Whether Stamp Duty is applicable when title is not transfer?
If Stamp Duty not paid then what happen?
It is requested kindly provide the answer.
Thanks.
gopala krishna
19 November 2013 at 12:57
Hi
My grandfather property (30*50) has been transferred to my father after death of my grandfather, my grandfather died in the year 1978, after that my father purchased the margin land from BDA (30*30) in the yeare 1984 and now my grandfathers daughter have filed the partition suit on they are claiming that the share should also come from margin land which my father purchased. My queries are
1) Whether they can claim on the margin land or not?
Rajesh
19 November 2013 at 11:53
Sir, I am appearing as Defendant Witness in a case of Specific Performance on next DOH . I want to get your advice on the following issue --- Whether Witness has a right
(a) to request the Judge to get recorded his cross examination in Question & Answer format instead of only recording only answers.
(b) to get recorded his answer/s in his own language.
(c)to lodge objection with Judge to any question put by opposite party advocate during cross examination, which doesn't have any relevance or out of context .
any other area Which I should take care while deposing .
prakash
19 November 2013 at 09:49
sir,
Sir,
My friend's father had made an unregistered will on 02/03/1995in which he distributed his all self aquired moveble and unmoveble property between my friend,my frind's wife,my friend's daughters and my friend's
sisters.My friend was made executor of the will in the same.
my frind's father died on 24/12/1998.The will was was witnessed by 2 person in which one was my frind's mother who also died on 13/12/2002.The second witness is alive.The
typist who had typed the will his name and signature is also there in the will and he is also alive.
After the death of my friend's father the property was distributed as per the will and the immoveble property was recorded in govt.records accordingly.
Now after nearly 15 years passed, my friend's sisters has created a dispute that the all property shold be equaly distributed.
They had served a legal notice to my friend on 28/9/2013 which was replied by my friend on 04/10/2013.
I want to know that in this case what the next option they have now?
Thanks.
basavaraj shiromani
19 November 2013 at 08:17
In a suit for specific performance of contract, the trial court as well as the Hight Court comes to the conclusion that the deed relied by the plaintiff is not at all an agreement of sale. Then what will be the position of a suit ? whether suit is to be dismissed or stands for any other purpose ?
rajan chopra
18 November 2013 at 21:12
A person after borrowing money from me executed a pronote in his own handwriting in favour of me promising that he will pay to me money as and when demanded by me.Now I want to endorse pronote in favour of another person at different place Can I ?
prakash
18 November 2013 at 18:47
Hell Sir,
I have a business running well 2,3 years back, i have taken finance from private people to improve the business, now business not running i can't able to pay childrens fees and shop & how rent also, every i have to pay these people only and they are thretening me also.
I have debts of credit cards and personal loans around 60lakhs
I do not have any assets on my name and i am from middle class family
i am unable to repay them due to financial crisis, i have lot of tensions due this i have chest pain also.
kindly provide me relief and the procedure, protection from police and these private financers(they can do anything even they my kill me also) i have filled insolvency petition,
now what proceed
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Introducing a new document during cross exam. please advise!!!
My question is
What is correct/settled position of law as to ‘introducing documents/exhibits while cross examining the opposite side’s witness (either the opposite party to suit or other witnesses of opposite side) ?
My belief is that ONLY the Respondent/Defendent (against whom the liability is alleged) in any original trial are protected from unfair 'surprises' (new documents/exhibits during cross) ................ BUT plaintiffs are NOT protected against any surprises, as plaintiffs are supposed to be aware of "facts of case and subject matter" and are expected "not to be surprised about their own grievances/contentions (alleged rights accrued).
The situation is as follows:
Plaintiff's evidence stage is going on …
Plaintiff has given Exam in chief.
Now, the current status is as follows:
§ Respondent is taking plaintiff's cross exam/confronting the Plaintiff in cross (i.e. plaintiff is being subjected to cross exam)
§ Respondent has a surprise document to expose 'vexacity of plaintiff'!!
§ I got only one case law so far of BOM HC (2011) which suggests 'plaintiff's mischief can be exposed' and there is NO need to publish ‘surprise’ document before hand else the plaintiff gets a clue as to what is comming!!!!
1. So Order 7 R 14, Order 8 R 1-A and Order 13 R 1, read together an exception is carved like Respondent is NOT using the abovesaid ‘surprise’ doc to support/prove Respondent’s plea but to demolish/disprove plaintiff's plea!!! and thus/hence there is no need to give notice /list of docs while filing WS vide Order 8 Rule 1-A, else the surprise element in cross examination would vanish. And it is as good as giving a list of 'likely questions in cross' in advance!!!!)
But in support of above I request some more legal expert opinion, and some more guidance from experts, and also SC/ BOM HC cases laws.
I have a few genuine doubts as well!!! as follows. Please comment on those. thanks in advance.
In regards to production of documents/list etc CPC provisions as ….
In Order 7 Rule 14, wording is as ‘…… plaintiff’s witnesses …….’
In Order 8 Rule 1-A, wording ALSO is ‘…… plaintiff’s witnesses …….’
(Both are referring to plaintiff’s witnesses)
In Order 13 Rule 1, wording is as ‘……witnesses of the other party ....’
(my question here is … what about ‘defendant’s witnesses’??? I thought initially there is a printing mistake in CPC bare act that I have, but it is not!!!!)
Thus, the Respondent wants to 'disprove' the plaintiff's version of facts and expose vexacity/mischief!
There is no such burden upon respondent, but respondent taking onus to do so. if plaintiff's version of 'facts' remain 'unproved' still it is sufficient.
Vide WS, the Respondent has not only explicitly denied "plaintiff's version of facts/incident" but also alleged a new "respondent's version of same facts/incidents" etc Whether Respondent's version of facts get proved or not is not a matter of concern (as there is no counter claim by respondent), if plaintiff's version of alleged facts get demolished, then there remains nothing in the case!
Please clarify my doubts as follows (I am confused after reading those case laws):
There is another BOM HC case law which says (as to O7 R14, O8 R 1-A & O13 R1):
“ …. there is distinction in the term witness and a party to the suit …”
“The party to the suit cannot be equated with the witness and cannot be confronted with a document by casting surprise upon him, particularly when the documents were not filed by the plaintiff along with the list of documents on which he is going to rely upon.”
Thanks