Can adverse inference be drawn against prosecution for non examination of Investigating Officer?

The investigating officer was not brought before the Court for the reasons best known to it.

Thus, the defence was deprived of the opportunity of proving this material omission for want of presence of investigating officer. In such a situation an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution.

Plea of adverse possession without admitting ownership of real owner is not tenable

In law there is presumption in favour of the continuity of the tenancy and against the possession of the tenant becoming adverse. Furthermore, the doctrine of tenant estoppel, which continues to operate even after the termination of the tenancy, debars a tenant who had been let into possession by a landlord, from disputing the latter's title or pleading adverse possession, without first openly and actually surrendering possession of the tenanted premises and restoring them to the landlord. [Para No.37]

   The question of adverse possession without admitting the title of the real owner is not tenable.[Para No.41]

How to prove a WILL?

At least one of the attesting witnesses is required to be examined to prove his attestation and the attestation by another witness and the testator.

    Once the Will has been proved then the contents of such document are part of evidence. Thus, the requirement of Section 63 of the Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act stands satisfied. The witness is not supposed to repeat in a parrot like manner the language of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. [Para No.23]

Every procedure is permitted to the court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited

Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives inherent powers to the court to do justice. That provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is permitted to the court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited, and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted. There is no express bar in filing an application for withdrawal of the withdrawal application.

Burdon of proof is on the party who claims the property to be joint property of Hindu Undivided Family

The law is well settled that the burden is on the person who alleges that the property is a joint property of an HUF to prove the same.[Para No.10]

It is clear that not only jointness of the family has to be proved but burden lies upon the person alleging existence of a joint family to prove that the property belongs to the joint Hindu family unless there is material on record to show that the property is the nucleus of the joint Hindu family or that it was purchased through funds coming out of this nucleus. [Para No.19]