Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (1.88 seconds)
Documents citing Tulsi & Ors vs Chandrika Prasad. & Ors on 24 August, 2006

Kannan vs S.Damodaran on 21 November, 2014

In Tulsi v. Chandrika Prasad, reported in (2007) 7MLJ 832, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as per Section 58 (c) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a transaction, if evidenced by one document may be held to be a mortgage with conditional sale. The conditions precedent for arriving at conclusion that the transaction is a mortgage with conditional sale or, there must be an ostensible sale. Document must contain a condition that on default of payment of mortgage amount on a stipulated date, the sale shall become absolute or that, on such payment being made, the sale shall become void or on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller. Referring Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the said section mainly forbids proving of the contents of a writing otherwise, than by writing itself and merely lays down the 'best evidence rule'. It, however, does not prohibit the parties to adduce evidence, in a case, the deed is capable of being construed differently to show how they understood the same.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

Kannan vs S.Damodaran on 21 November, 2014

In Tulsi v. Chandrika Prasad, reported in (2007) 7MLJ 832, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as per Section 58 (c) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a transaction, if evidenced by one document may be held to be a mortgage with conditional sale. The conditions precedent for arriving at conclusion that the transaction is a mortgage with conditional sale or, there must be an ostensible sale. Document must contain a condition that on default of payment of mortgage amount on a stipulated date, the sale shall become absolute or that, on such payment being made, the sale shall become void or on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller. Referring Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the said section mainly forbids proving of the contents of a writing otherwise, than by writing itself and merely lays down the 'best evidence rule'. It, however, does not prohibit the parties to adduce evidence, in a case, the deed is capable of being construed differently to show how they understood the same.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

Adivekka & Ors vs Hanamavva Kom Venkatesh (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 9 May, 2007

Had she examined herself, she could have been accosted with the said question. It could have been shown that Hanumanthappa did not have any love and affection for her. Non- examination of the party to the lis would lead to drawal of an adverse inference against her. [See Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Another, AIR 1927 PC 230, Martand Pandharinath v. Radhabai, AIR 1931 Bom 97, Sri Sudhir Ranjan Paul v. Sri Chhatter Singh Baid & Anr., Tulsi and Others v. Chandrika Prasad and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 322 and Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh & Ors, [2007 (6) SCALE 398]
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 71 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next