Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Sanjukta Ray vs Bimelendu Mohanty And Ors. on 15 October, 1996

Jateswar @ Babaji Charan Lenka vs Parmeswar Lenka & Others on 1 March, 2019

14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift 11 acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be haned over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance. (See Sajukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty, Kamakashi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi and Samrathi Devi v. Parasuram Pandey).
Orissa High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A K Rath - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Sharma W/O Late Kishori Lal ... vs Smt. Usha Kush W/O Sh. Naresh Kush on 9 September, 2019

[See Sanjukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty, AIR 1997 Orissa 131; Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi, AIR 1995 Mad 415; Samrathi Devi v. Parsuram Pandey, AIR 1975 Patna 140]." In the instant case, all the essentials of a gift under section 122, Transfer of Property Act have been duly complied with. Being a registered instrument, the gift deed Ex. DW1/P1 carries with it the presumption under section 114, Evidence Act. Section 34, Registration Act, inter alia, contemplates the registering authority being satisfied with the identity of the executant and whether or not the executant had in fact executed the document before he can order for registration of the document presented for registration. Furthermore, the Sub­Registrar had duly made the necessary endorsements in compliance with section 58, Registration Act on the gift deed Ex. DW1/P1. Endorsement on the gift deed Ex. DW1/P1 would reflect that plaintiff himself had presented it for registration before the Sub­Registrar. Further, as per Sub­Registrar's endorsement on the gift deed Ex. DW1/P1 plaintiff had admitted the contents thereof as correct and put his signatures and thumb impressions thereon in Sub­Registrar's presence.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shrimati Geeta Bai (Died) Through Lrs vs Ramavatar Agrawal And Anr on 3 August, 2022

14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raised a presumption of acceptance. (See Sanjukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty, AIR 1997 Orissa 131, Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi AIR 1995 Madras 415 and Samrathi /Devi v. Parasuram pandey AIR 1975 Patna 140).
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shrimati Premlata Bai vs Shri Nivash Agrawal (Dead) Through Lrs on 3 August, 2022

14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raised a presumption of acceptance. (See Sanjukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty, AIR 1997 Orissa 131, Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi AIR 1995 Madras 415 and Samrathi /Devi v. Parasuram pandey AIR 1975 Patna 140).
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asokan vs Lakshmikutty & Ors on 14 December, 2007

14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance. [See Sanjukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty AIR 1997 Orissa 131, Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi, AIR 1995 Mad 415 and Samrathi Devi v. Parsuram Pandey AIR 1975 Patna 140]
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 67 - S B Sinha - Full Document

K.A.Shanmugam vs Tamilarasi on 23 September, 2011

In support of this contention, the learned senior counsel has relied on the decisions reported in KAMAKSHI AMMAL .vs. RAJALAKSHMI (AIR 1995 MADRAS 415), T.V.KALYANASUNDARAM PILLAI .vs. KARUPPA MOOPANAR (AIR 1927 PRIVY COUNCIL 42), R.KUMARASAMY KOUNDER .vs. V.EZHUMALAI KOUNDER (1996(II) CTC 150), THIAGARAJAN, S .vs. SARASWATHY KITTU (1999 (III) CTC 217), N.SUBRAMANIAN .vs. THANJIAMMAL AND ANOTHER ((2008) 1 MLJ 227), ASOKAN .vs. LAKSHMIKUTTY ((2008) 1 MLJ 193 (SC), SANJUKTA RAY .vs. BIMELENDU MOHANTY (AIR 1997 ORISSA 131).
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 23 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Subramanian vs David @ Kalian ... 1St on 30 August, 2013

14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance. (See Sanjukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty AIR 1997 Ori.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Palanivelu - Full Document

Sushama Rani Roy Chowdhury vs Bani Roy And Ors on 29 September, 2016

He further submitted that the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff is an educated lady is ex-facie contrary to the evidence adduced by the parties to the suit and no document was proved by the defendants to substantiate that the plaintiff had executed any other deed to prove that she is not an illiterate lady nor the plaintiff, during her cross-examination, was confronted with any other deed executed by herself in respect of any immovable property to prove that she is not an illiterate lady. According to Mr. Roy, admittedly the defendant no. 2 did not appear before the learned trial Judge to adduce any evidence to claim that he himself and the plaintiff have great affection towards each other or that he used to call the plaintiff has "mother". He next contended that the impugned deed of gift reflects the signature of the defendant no. 1 towards acceptance the gift of the immovable property on behalf of her minor son, the defendant no.2, but the defendant no. 1 herself in her cross-examination stated that she has no knowledge anything about either the execution or registration of the impugned deed of gift and, as such, the defendants cannot contend that in order to accept the gift on behalf of her minor son, the defendant no. 1 had put her signature on the impugned deed of gift either at the time of its execution or at the time of its registration. He strenuously urged that further in the instant case, the impugned deed of gift does not record delivery of possession of the property in question by the plaintiff to any of the defendant nos. 1 and 2, but the defendants have also failed to substantiate as to when and how the plaintiff delivered possession of the property to the defendant no. 1. Drawing the attention of the Court to the land revenue records proved and exhibited by the plaintiff, Mr. Roy further submitted that the plaintiff is still paying taxes and revenue in respect of the property in question and she is still possessing the said property. Thus, according Mr. Roy, neither the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Balai Chandra Parui (supra) nor the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Sanjukta Ray (supra) has any manner of the application in the present case.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baldev Singh vs Surinder Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs ... on 22 September, 2016

14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance. [See ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:17:10 :::HCHP 17 Sanjukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty AIR 1997 Orissa 131, Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi, AIR 1995 Mad 415 and Samrathi Devi v. Parsuram Pandey AIR 1975 Patna 140]
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Sharma - Full Document
1   2 Next