Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Ramanathan Chetti And Ors. vs Delhi Batcha Tevar Alias Udayana Tevar ... on 11 February, 1930

Suriyanarayanan Potti (Died) vs Nirmala on 7 March, 2013

The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment reported in 60 MLJ 302 (Ramanathan Chetti and others v. Delhi Batcha Tevar alias Udayana Tevar and others) only for the proposition that when the property is included in a mortgage for which he has no title and the mortgagee was not aware of the want of title the registration of the said document in respect of other property cannot be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

Suriyanarayanan Potti (Died) vs Nirmala on 7 March, 2013

The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment reported in 60 MLJ 302 (Ramanathan Chetti and others v. Delhi Batcha Tevar alias Udayana Tevar and others) only for the proposition that when the property is included in a mortgage for which he has no title and the mortgagee was not aware of the want of title the registration of the said document in respect of other property cannot be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

A. Dhanapala Chetty vs D. Goverchand Sowcar And Anr. on 7 April, 1938

In Ramanathan Chetty v. Delhi Batcha Tevar (1930) 60 M.L.J. 302, it was held that the mere endorsement by the Sub-Registrar of an admission of execution and the signature of the witnesses present at the time are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, as amended by the Acts of 1926 and 1927, where there is no evidence to the effect that the signatures of the witnesses to the admission were affixed to the document in the presence of the admitting executants or any endorsement to that effect. When this question of attestation was raised in the trial Court the learned Advocate for the 1st respondent asked the learned Judge to allow evidence to be called apparently in order to prove that the identifying witnesses had seen the appellant sign the instrument or that they had received from him a personal acknowledgment of his' signature and had themselves signed in his presence.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1