P. Kamakshi Ammal, W/O. Late P. ... vs P. Venkatesan And Ors. on 8 April, 1985
A party to the document cannot attest (Vide Sarur Jigar Begum v. Barada Kanta Hitter I.L.R. (1910) 37 Cal.526.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.33 seconds)Documents citing
Sarur Jigar Begum vs Barada Kanta Mitter on 18 February, 1910
T.V. Vedavyasa Aiyar vs The Madura Hindu Labha Nidhi Co. Ltd., ... on 19 August, 1918
In Sururjigur Begum v. Baredakant Mitter (1910) 11 C.L.J. 563 at 576 : I.L.R. 37 Cal. 526. the same learned Judge was of opinion that if the amount due to the first mortgagee was paid there can be no sale of the mortgaged properties and the puisne encumbrancers would obtain no relief in the suit.
Kumar Harish Chandra Singh Das & Ors vs Bansidhar Mohanty And Ors on 5 May, 1965
This definition is similar to that contained in the Indian
Succession Act. It will seen that it also does not preclude
in terms the lender of money from attesting a mortgage deed
under which the money was lent. No other provision of law
has been brought to our notice which debars the lender of
money from attesting the deed which evidences the
transaction whereunder the money was lent. Learned counsel,
however, referred us to some decisions of the High Courts in
India. These are Peary Mohan Maiti & Ors. v. Sreenath
Chandra(1); Sarur Jigar Begun v. Barada Kanta ( 2 ) and
Gamati Ammal v. V. S. M. Krishna Iyer (3). In all these
cases it has been held that a party to a document which is
required by law to be attested is not competent to attest
the document.
Jaikarandas Agarwalla And Anr. vs Protapsing Agarwalla And Anr. on 6 July, 1939
5. Following this principle it has been held in Suraj Jigar Begum v. Barada Kanta (1910) 37 Cal. 526 that when a document or a bond is executed by two persons in the presence of each it could not be said that each executant was an attesting witness in respect of the signature of the other.
1