Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

The calling of at least one attesting witness to prove a document under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act is not necessary

The calling of at least one attesting witness to prove a document under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act is not necessary Correct Answer When the document other than a Will is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908

Related Questions

A Will can be proved by at least one attesting witness being examined. Therefore where both the attesting witnesses have died, the Will cannot be proved. Is this statement correct?
To prove both the parts of the offence contemplated in Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, which of the following must be proved by the prosecution?
1. To prove the first part, the accused did abet the offence either by instigation or by conspiracy or by intentional aiding or by illegal omission.
2. To prove the first part, the offence was such which is punishable with imprisonment.
3. To prove the second part, the person abetted was a public servant during the period he was abetted.
4. To prove the second part, it was the duty of such public servant to prevent the commission of such an offence.
Select the incorrect statements:
1. The Indian Evidence Act does not apply to arbitration proceedings.
2. The Indian Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings before a Commissioner appointed by the court for recording evidence
3. The Indian Evidence Act applies to affidavits presented to Courts
4. The Indian Evidence Act applies to judicial proceedings held before all kinds of military courts
Under the Indian Evidence Act, if attesting witness denies the execution of document then:
Carefully read following statements:
1. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of two persons, whereas under Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of five persons.
2. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, common intention is required whereas under Section 149 Indian Penal Code, common object is required
3. Previous consent is required under Section 34 & 149 of Indian Penal Code
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code constitutes a specific offence
Which of the above statements is true:
Consider the following statements:
1. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires two persons whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code require five persons.
2. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code requires common object
3. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code both require presence of a prior consent
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Both create specific offence
Which of the above statements are correct?
A will is required to be proved by calling at least one attesting witness
Choice the correct propositions:
1. Evidence of fingerprint expert is substantive evidence.
2. Evidence of fingerprint expert can be used only to corroborate some items of substantive evidence which are otherwise on record.
3. Evidence of fingerprint expert is not substantive evidence.
4. Evidence of fingerprint expert is admissible in all circumstances as expert evidence.
A document was in the joint possession of X and Y. In a suit between Y and Z, Z requested the court for the discovery of that document. Y informed the court about the nature of the document and also stated that X is not consenting to produce the document. Z requested the court to compel Y for the production of the document as it is in the joint possession. Decide whether the court will compel Y for the production of the document.
Statement A: The presumption under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act is not attracted if the marriage took place more than seven years prior to the suicide of woman, even if the cruelty is established by prosecution.
Statement B: By the introduction of Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution is not required to prove the facts beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
Which of the statement is correct?