Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 273 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Yellapu Uma Maheswari & Anr vs Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Ors on 8 October, 2015

Smt. Sharadamma vs Sri. Narayanaswamy on 23 February, 2026

13. There is only one aspect of the matter which needs consideration, i.e., whether the document dated 09.09.1994 which was inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose, i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. Further, an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. A two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others:( 2015)16 SCC
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Instalment Supply Limited vs Khaitan Hotels Pvt Ltd & Anr on 19 August, 2016

10. The trial court has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheshwari and Ors. vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and Ors. (supra) to reach its conclusion. The Supreme Court in the said judgment held that an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purposes, until the same is impounded. Hence, if the party wants to mark these documents for collateral purpose it is open for them to pay the stamp duty together with penalty and get the document impounded and the trial court is at liberty to mark the documents as exhibits. In that case the issue related to marking of documents which according to the defendant was a deed of Memorandum witnessing an earlier partition and an agreement between the parties. The issue was as to whether the agreement and the memorandum can be construed as a relinquishment deed which requires compulsory registration. The Supreme Court after reading CM(M) 793/2016 Page 5 the documents concluded that there is a relinquishment of rights in respect of immoveable property and that the two documents fell within the ambit of Section 17(i)(b) of The Registration Act, 1908 and are compulsorily registrable. The Supreme Court first arrived at a conclusion about the nature of the document and then passed appropriate orders for the purpose of imposition of stamp duty. On the issue of construction of the document, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

Shri Dattatray Ganpatrao Surve vs Heeraben D/O Deceased Bhagvanbhai M ... on 23 December, 2022

13. There is only one aspect of the matter which needs consideration, i.e., whether the document dated 09.09.1994 which was inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. Further, an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. A two Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others, (2015) 16 SCC 787, is appropriate. In the above case also admissibility of documents Ext. B 21 dated 05.06.1975 a deed of memorandum and Ext. B 2 dated 04.06.1975 being an agreement between one late Mahalakshamma, respondent No.1 plaintiff and appellant No.1 defendant came for consideration. Objection Page 16 of 73 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 04:49:00 IST 2022 C/SA/408/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/12/2022 was taken regarding admissibility which was upheld both by the High Court and trial court. Matter was taken up by this Court. In the above case, this Court held that the nomenclature given to the document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents. This Court after considering both the documents, B 21 and B 22 held that they require registration. In paragraph 15 following was held:
Gujarat High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Rajinder Kaur And Another vs Yashodan Devi (Deceased) Through Lrs on 6 May, 2024

in Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao, (2015) 16 SCC 787 : (2016) 3 SCC (Civ) 767 is appropriate. In the above case also, admissibility of documents, Ext. B-21 dated 5-6-1975 a deed of memorandum and Ext. B-22 dated 4-6-1975 being an agreement between one late Mahalakshamma, Respondent 1-plaintiff and Appellant 1-defendant came for consideration.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - V Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next