Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (4.34 seconds)
Documents citing Mt. Bibbo vs Rai Saheb Gokaran Singh on 16 September, 1936

Nookala Krishnaiah And Anr. vs Nookala Dakshina Murthy And Ors. on 18 June, 2007

"Collateral matter", on the other hand, is something, which is total divorced, and different from the transaction, evidenced by a document. The document may contain certain recitals, which are totally unrelated to the transaction, which it intends to bring about. For example, the age of the vendor, as on the date of the execution of the document, is shown at a particular figure. The recital in that regard cannot be said to be collateral to the transaction, by any stretch of imagination. If a dispute arises in a different set of proceedings, as to the age of the said vendor, reliance upon the said document for the limited purpose of enlightening the Court, on the said aspect; cannot attract the prohibition contained under Section 35. The reason is that, the purpose for which reliance is placed on the document is related neither to the main transaction, nor to collateral purposes, and its utility is pressed into service in a collateral matter. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Mt. Bibbo v. Rai Saheb Gokaran Singh AIR 1937 All. 101, analyzed Section 35 of the Act, before and after its amendment. After referring to the requirement under Section 35, the Court observed as under:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Sanjeeva Reddi vs Johanputra Reddi on 30 August, 1971

The words 'for any purpose' were construed by the Allahabad High Court in Mt. Biboo v. Rai Saheb Gakaran Singh AIR 1937 All 101 as undoubtedly implying "for each and every purpose whatsoever, without any exception" and it matters little whether the purpose is the main purpose or is a collateral one. The decision of the Privy Council in AIR 1946 PC 51 sets at rest the conflicting vires expressed by the High Courts. As pointed out by Sir John Beaumont, the words "for any purpose" should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Lakkaraju Radha Krishna vs Pyarle Sri Rama Sarma And Ors. on 16 October, 2006

12. Reverting to the facts of the case, the document in question is a lease agreement, or lease deed, whichever one may choose to call it. The principal object is, to bring about a transaction of lease, and its collateral purposes would include the duration of lease, amount of rent, delivery of possession etc. If there exists a recital, as to the manner, in which the lessor had acquired the possession, it cannot be treated as collateral to it. Even if the document is insufficiently stamped, it can be pressed into service, by a person, who is not a party to it, but, only for a purpose, which is totally unrelated to the transaction. Viewed from this context, the purpose for which the petitioner intended to rely on the document, is totally unrelated to the transaction, brought about the document in question. The principles, that can be culled out from the precedents referred to above, get attracted to the facts of the case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - L N Reddy - Full Document
1