held that judgments not inter partes, relating to
land acquired are not admissible merely
because the land dealt with in the judgment
was situated near the land of which the value
is to be determined. It was held there that such
judgments would fall neither under Section 11
nor under Section 13 of the Evidence Act.
Questions relating to value of particular pieces
of land depend upon the evidence in the
particular case in which those facts are proved.
They embody findings or opinions relating to
facts in issue and investigated in different
cases. The existence of a judgment would not
prove the value of some piece of land not dealt
with at all in the judgment admitted in
evidence. Even slight differences in
situation can, sometimes, cause
considerable differences in value. We do
not think it necessary to take so
restrictive a view of the provisions of
Sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act as
to exclude such judgments altogether from
evidence even when good grounds are
made out for their admission. In Khaja
Fizuddin Vrs. State of A.P., Civil Appeal No.
176 of 1962, decided on 10.04.1963 (SC), a
Bench of three Judges of this Court held such
judgments to be relevant if they relate to
similarly situated properties and contain
determinations of value on dates fairly
proximate to the relevant date in a case.
[ad_1]
Source link