Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing Thangachi Nachial And Anr. vs Ahmed Hussain Malumiar And Ors. on 5 April, 1956

Virendra Singh And Ors. vs Kashiram (Deceased By L.Rs.) on 6 April, 2004

In Thangachi Nachial v. Ahmed Hussain Malumiar, AIR 1957 Mad 194 it was held that in the very nature of things, fraud is secret limits origin and inception and the means adoption for its success and fraudulent motive or design cannot be proved to the very hilt and it should be inferred from the circumstances placed before the Court. Each circumstance by itself may not mean much but taking all of them together, they may reveal a fraudulent or dishonest plan.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 32 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Biru vs Nanhi on 14 May, 2007

As held in the case of Thangachi Nachial and Anr. v. Ahmed Hussain Malumiar and Ors. , fraud by its very nature is a secret in its origin and inception and the means adopted for its success and fraudulent motive or design can not be proved to the very hilt and it would be inferred from the circumstances placed before the Court. Each circumstance in itself even may not mean much but taking them together, they may reveal a fraudulent or a dishonest plan. The circumstance indicating that the appellant is a simpleton, a fact which was admitted by the respondent and was misled in putting his thumb impression on papers on the pretext of getting the land partitioned with collateral, coupled with the prearranged plan to engage counsel and to draft suit, file it, get the statement recorded and decree on one day, when viewed together would establish the fraud and collusion as alleged by the appellant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - R Singh - Full Document

Suguna vs Vinod G.Nehemiah on 26 February, 2008

In this connection, he placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1927 Madras 255 (VENKATRAMA AIYAR Vs. KRISHNAMMAL), on the question of undue influence, a question as a fact which has to be proved, as well as to a series of decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1937 PC 50 (PALANIVELU Vs. NEELAVATHI), AIR 1957 Madras 194 (THANGACHI Vs. AHMED HUSSAIN) and AIR 1961 Madras 190 (ABDUL MALICK Vs. MD.YOUSUF). As to the existence of facts to substantiate the allegation of fraud and undue influence, the onus is on the first appellant to prove that there was no undue influence practised.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Chandrasekaran vs Thagattur Anna Chatram on 17 February, 2017

And others V. Anjalai Ammal and another), XI L.W 197 ( Kadhir Masthan Rowther V. Segammal), 1957 MLJ 300 (Thangachi Nachial alias Shaik Ali Nachial and another V. Ahmed Hussain Malumiar and others), AIR 1956 ANDHRA 19 (Vol.43, C.5 Jan) (Mohideen Khan V.Ganikhan and others), AIR 1956 Supreme Court 382 (Vikrama Das Mahant V. Daulat Ram Asthana and others) and Part 29 LW 547 (Chandrasekaran Pillai and others V. Muthu Bogi (deed) and others). The principles of law outlined in those decisions, are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - T Ravindran - Full Document

Tagore Township Reg.No.2970/1998, A ... vs Mr.Md.Khasim, S/O Jamaluddin, ... on 23 March, 2018

After hearing the learned counsels and perusing the records, this Court is also of the opinion that the decree in the suit OS.No.184 of 1989 was obtained by fraudulent means. The sequence of events and the conduct of the parties lead this Court to believe that as a part of design, the suit was filed by the present first defendant against S.Satyanarayana Reddy and Ramachandra Rao. The name of Satyanarayana Reddy was wrongly mentioned and despite being put on notice, no steps were taken to correct the same. The case was pending for long and the passing of the decree based on a sudden admission is another doubtful circumstance. Despite the lack of pleadings; documentary evidence, a decree was passed on an admission. As per the judgments reported in Thangachi Nachial and Another v. Ahmed Hussain Malumiar and Others and Passarilal Mannoolal vs. Mst. Chhuttanbai and Others , fraud can also be inferred from a reading of all the surrounding circumstances. All the circumstances when viewed together lead this Court to this conclusion. Once it is proved that fraud is played, even the most solemn judicial act can be reopened.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - D V Somayajulu - Full Document

Anisur Rahman And Ors. vs Sheikh Abul Hayat on 30 January, 1965

9. It was, however, contended that if this restricted view be taken, endowed properties may be tost to the endowment because a trustee for the time being may make void transfers and then take no steps whatsoever to obtain possession of the property on behalf of the endowment during his lifetime, thereby allowing the prescribed period of twelve years to elapse, and allow the transferee to perfect his title. But this difficulty has to be faced even in the case of rank trespassers who obtain possession of the trust property by force or otherwise and against whom the trustee does not take action during his lifetime. Moreover, even in the cases mentioned above, it is open to the other persons interested in the trust to take appropriate steps for the removal of the trustee for having committed breach of trust and also to obtain a declaration to the effect that the transfer was null and void and was not binding on the endowment and to recover possession of the alienated property for the endowment (see the decisions cited in Thangachi Nachial v. Ahmed Hussain Malumiar, AIR 1957 Mad 194 paragraphs 7 and 8)
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Surjit Kumar Harichand vs Smt. Raj Kumari on 1 December, 1965

What emerges from the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses, namely, the appellant P. W. 5, Hans Raj P. W. 1 and Gokal Singh P. W. 2, is that they generally represented that the girl was good. The grievance of the appellant mainly is that they ought to have disclosed that the girl had an unchaste career, particularly because Bhola Nath knew about it. Relying on Shinhomal Jialdas v. Manager Encumbered Estates, Sind, AIR 1914 Sind 28; Mt. Umrao Begum v. Sheikh Rahmat Ilahi, AIR 1939 Lah 439 and Thangachi Nachial v. Ahmed Hussain Malumiar, AIR 1957 Mad 194, it is said that fraud in Section 12 of the said Act should not be limited to its definition in Section 17 of the Contract Act and it cannot be proved to the very hilt by direct evidence, but should be inferred from the various circumstances. For the purposes of this case, I am prepared to assume that fraud in Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not to be so limited.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next