Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing K. Nagarathinam And Anr. vs K. Rajammal on 22 August, 1986

Shankar Reddiar (Deceased) vs Royal Reddiar on 16 April, 2019

In this connection, the decision of our High Court reported in 100 L.W. 363 (K.Nagarathinam and another vs. K.Rajammal) is to be http://www.judis.nic.in 22 taken note of. In the abovesaid decision, it has been held that the fact whether the attestor to a document had attested the same on fully understanding the particulars of the transaction, would all, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document

R.Dayalan vs Nagarathnam on 2 November, 2012

It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is not open to the appellant to dispute the validity of the settlement deed as he had signed the document as an attesting witness. Whether this contention could be accepted is the issue? What is the implication of the minor signed the document as an attesting witness. Whether the minor is estopped from disputing the validity of the settlement deed just because he is shown to be the attesting witness to the document. The legal implication has been discussed in the decision reported in 100 L.W. Page 363 (K.Nagarathinam and another Vs. K.Rajammal).
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Vimala - Full Document

Sekar vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 30 May, 2024

17. Moreover, when P.W-1 admits that, he enquired Selvi and Chellammal before this purchase and that they admitted that they have already sold their shares, in the light of the P.W-1's evidence, every recital in Ex.-B3 Sale Deed is a false recital, knowingly and intentionally made. He further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an attestation by the two brothers attesting the document executed by their sisters, amount to more than mere attestation, is also well settled by various judgment of this Honourable Court, 87 LW 176 Ramasamy Gounder vs. Ananthapadmanabha Iyer and 100 LW 363 K.Nagarathinam vs. Rajammal. P.W-2 was initially trying to deny even the factum of attestation completely but he was exposed in further cross that he knew about the transaction and it was agreed. But he would say only 2 shares were agreed to be alienated. But this is a lame statement and the entire family was aware and stood by and affirmed the transactions for 20 years can be inferred from the entire evidence on record, the circumstances and the conduct of the parties 20/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.246 of 2021 and their inter-se relationship and the artificial recitals in the sale deed. Therefore, by attestation they are clearly estopped and they are consenting parties.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muthusamy vs Arumugam (Died) on 16 October, 2019

[1] Whether in law that Lower Appellate Court was right in failing to see that while both boundaries and extents shown in the title deeds produced by the plaintiff read with the Commissioner's reports showed that the respondent had no claim in the suit property, the suit could not be decreed on mere conjectures.? and [2] Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court was right in finding that attestation of a document would impute knowledge of the contents vide 1987 (Vol.100) L.W. 363 [K.Nagarathinam and another Vs. K.Rajammal] = 1987 (1) MLJ 257?
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Annadurai And Ors. vs Mayazaghu, Represented By His Power Of ... on 2 November, 2000

11. The learned Counsel for the appellants would cite yet another judgment reported in Khaji Muhammad Hussain Sahib v. Mastiday Mahmood Jamait (1940)2 M.L.J. 436 and for attesting the document with the consenting mind, he would cite another judgment of this Court delivered in K. Nagarathinam and Anr. v. K. Rajammal 100 L. W. 3.63, wherein it is held:
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document

Guruswami Mudaliar vs M. Murugesan on 28 February, 2003

21.In the case of K.Nagarathinam and another Vs. K.Rajammal (1987-IMLJ-257), [Srinivasan, J., (as he then was)], after considering several views of this court and also the views expressed by other High Courts, had stated, "After analysing all those decisions, I find that they lay down the proposition that if it is shown to the court that an attesting witness was a consenting party to a particular transaction, he would be estopped from questioning the effectiveness of the said transaction, on a later occasion on the ground that he was not a party thereto, though some of the decisions proceed on the footing that there is a sort of usage in this part of the country to obtain the signature of a party as an attesting witness whenever his consent is required for the said transaction. In all these cases, an inference has been drawn from all the facts and circumstances of the cases that the attesting witnesses therein were really consenting to the transaction in question.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Guruswami Mudaliar vs M. Murugesan on 28 February, 2003

21.In the case of K.Nagarathinam and another Vs. K.Rajammal (1987-IMLJ-257), [Srinivasan, J., (as he then was)], after considering several views of this court and also the views expressed by other High Courts, had stated, "After analysing all those decisions, I find that they lay down the proposition that if it is shown to the court that an attesting witness was a consenting party to a particular transaction, he would be estopped from questioning the effectiveness of the said transaction, on a later occasion on the ground that he was not a party thereto, though some of the decisions proceed on the footing that there is a sort of usage in this part of the country to obtain the signature of a party as an attesting witness whenever his consent is required for the said transaction. In all these cases, an inference has been drawn from all the facts and circumstances of the cases that the attesting witnesses therein were really consenting to the transaction in question.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishnanamoorthy vs Rajangam on 9 January, 2017

In this connection, the plaintiff's counsel relied upon the decision of this court reported in 1987 (100) LW 363, K.Nagarathinam and another vs. K.Rajammal. As per the above said decision, it could seen that unless it is established that the contents of the document are known to the attestor and he is also a consenting party to the transaction, the principle of estoppel could not be invoked on the mere factum of attestation.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document
1