Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 148 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Ningawwa vs Byrappa & 3 Ors on 17 January, 1968

Jagdeep Sharma vs Rahul Chaudhary on 27 January, 2026

Judgment dated 27.01.2026 intended to enter into the contract to which she unknowingly became a party. Her mind did not accompany her thump impressions. This is a case that falls within the principle enunciated in Ningawwa v. Byrappa and it was, therefore, a totally void transaction. Accordingly, as stated in gorakh Nath Dube, the suit is not maintainable by reason of the bar contained in the Act."
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ponnusamy vs Govindan

The plaintiff appellant never intended to sign what she did sign. She never intended to enter into the contract to which she unknowingly became a party. Her mind did not accompany her thump impressions. This is a case that falls within the principle enunciated in Ningawwa v. Byrappa and it was, therefore, a totally void transaction. Accordingly, as stated in gorakh Nath Dube, the suit is not maintainable by reason of the bar contained in the Act.” (Italics supplied)
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

Smt. Dularia Devi vs Janardan Singh & Ors on 2 March, 1990

(emphasis supplied) From the facts narrated above, about which, as stated earlier, there is no dispute, it is clear that this is a case where the plaintiffappellant was totally ignorant of the mischief played upon her. She honestly believed that the instrument which she executed and got registered was a gift deed in favour of her daughter. She believed that the thumb impressions taken from her were in respect of that single document. She did not know that she executed two documents, one of which alone was the gift deed, but the other Was a sale of the property in favour of all the defendants. This was, therefore, a case of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document executed by her and not merely as to its contents or as to its legal effect. The plaintiff-appellant never intended to sign what she did sign. She never intended to enter into the contract to which she unknowingly became a party. Her mind did not accompany her thumb impressions. This is a case that fails within the principle enunciated in Ningawwa v. Byrappa & 3 Ors., (supra) and it was, therefore, a totally void transaction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 43 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Thirumalai Vadivu Ammal (Died) And 4 ... vs Muthammal And Another on 26 April, 1999

The plaintiff appellant never intended to sign what she did sign. She never intended to enter into the contract to which she unknowingly became a party. Her mind did not accompany her thump impressions. This is a case that falls within the principle enunciated in Ningawwa v. Byrappa and it was, therefore, a totally void transaction. Accordingly, as stated in gorakh Nath Dube, the suit is not maintainable by reason of the bar contained in the Act." (Italics supplied)
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Selvaraju Kounder vs Sahadeva Kounder on 13 February, 1997

This decision was referred to with approval by this Court in Ningawwa v. Byrappa (1968) A.C. 956 It was observed: (S.C.R. pp. 800-01) It is well established that a contract or other transaction induced or tainted by fraud is not void, but only voidable, at the option of the party defrauded. Until it is avoided, the transaction is valid, so that third parties without notice of the fraud may in the meantime acquire rights and interests in the matter which they may enforce against the party defrauded.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bachchi Devi And Others vs Radheshyam Guptadied Thr. Lrs Urmila ... on 5 March, 2019

As such, both the Courts below have failed to notice inherent distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation of the character of the document and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents of the document as laid down in Ningawwa (supra) and reiterated in Dularia Devi (supra) in which their Lordships of Supreme Court have clearly held that in case of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document, the transaction is void and in case of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents of the document, the latter is voidable only. Present is a case concurrently recorded by the two Courts below that it is fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and sale deed was got executed by S.A.No.65/2003 Page 15 of 16 defendant No.1 on the pretext of getting him medically treated as Chunnilal on that day was profusely ill and therefore it is transparently void and once the court has reached to the conclusion holding the document to be void, it is liable to be set aside, as, in the present case, Chunnilal was totally deceived as to the character of the document. Therefore, both the Courts below have concurrently erred in understanding the true nature and import of the document after having held that Chunnilal was deceived as to the character of the document by defendant No.1 while getting it executed, but wrongly held the document sale deed was only voidable and hit by Section 19 of the Act of 1872.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Societe Generale vs National Small Industries Corporation ... on 10 January, 1997

(30) Now, coming to the second point, foregoing discussion also prima facie establishes that the appellant was not the party to the fraud nor aware of the fraud having been committed. Consequently, on the general principles of estoppel, as referred to in Ningawwa Vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar & ors. (supra), and the appellant-bank being a party without notice of the fraud could certainly acquire better rights and interest in the matter and they may enforce the rights acquired under such title against the party defrauded. The appellant-bank were holder for value and holder in due course of the Bill of Exchange.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Bal Kishore Prasad & Ors vs Chaudo Devi & Ors on 20 August, 2014

24. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants i.e. AIR 1968 Supreme Court 956(Ningawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar and others) (supra) is the settled law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the old Article of the Limitation Act, 1908 and held that starting point of limitation is not the date of execution of the gift deed but time when fraud becomes known to the party wronged and starting point will be when plaintiff discovered true nature of the deed. Therefore, this decision is not helpful to the appellants in the present facts and circumstances of this case.
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document

D. Sivakesava Reddy vs Kanni Ammal & Ors1And In The Case Of ... on 8 April, 2026

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also had an occasion to consider the Article-59 (erstwhile Article-91) in the case of Ningawwa Vs Byrappa & 3 Ors7. In this case, a wife had executed a gift deed transferring certain plots to her husband. Subsequently, she filed a suit for setting aside the deed of gift. The case of the wife, was that she had been told that she was executing a deed of gift in relation to two plots while other properties apart from the two plots, were also included in the deed of gift. The matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered not only the question of limitation, but also the question of whether a document executed, under undue influence of fraud would be a void document or avoidable document. The relevant passage in the said judgment as follows:-
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next