Venkataramanappa Vs. Narasaiah

.....given a fair opportunity to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence available with them. ;the examination of the attesting witness under section 68 of the evidence act is not necessary when the executant denies the execution. but when the fact of execution of a document is itself in dispute irrespective of the provisions of section 68 the party alleging execution of a document has to prove the execution. in that regard if there are any attesting witnesses to a document, the examination of such witness to prove the execution of the document becomes necessary and they would be necessary and material witness. - minority educational institution: [cyriac joseph, cj & b.s. patil, j] respondent institution claiming minority status, but has decided to ignore the interest of the telugu speaking linguistic minorities of karnataka legality of action of respondent institutions - held, it cannot be understood why the respondent colleges have decided to ignore the interest of the telugu speaking linguistic minorities of karnataka while purportedly resorting to admissions only on the basis of merit. if the object was to strictly go by merit, it was not necessary to either seek minority status and claim protection or hold separate common entrance test claiming as institutions belonging to religious or linguistic minorities. neither the consensual agreement nor the seat matrix issued could come in the way of the respondent-colleges to earmark certain number of seats to telugu minority in karnataka. when a publication is issued at the time of counselling, informing the candidates that students belonging to linguistic minorities would get first preference and if that process is not followed, the aggrieved students are entitled to approach the high court and contend that the process followed is illegal and non-transparent. the whole problem is cropped up on account of the wrong process adopted by the respondent-colleges by switching over from the method of giving.....order 14 rule 1 & 2 - framing of issues by the court - held - if there is a specific denial of execution of a document by a party to the suit, it is necessary for the court to frame a specific issue regarding proof of execution of the document. allowing the rsa, remanding the matter to the first appellate court, the court,heldin the instant case there is a specific denial of execution of the sale deed by the defendant. it is necessary for the courts-below to have framed a specific issue regarding proof of execution of the sale deed casting burden on the plaintiff and such an issue would have given a fair opportunity to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence available with them. the examination of the attesting witness under section 68 of the evidence act is not necessary when the executant denies the execution. but when the fact of execution of a document is itself in dispute irrespective of the provisions of section 68 the party alleging execution of a document has to prove the execution. in that regard if there are any attesting witnesses to a document, the examination of such witness to prove the execution of the document becomes necessary and they would be necessary and material witness.