Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 173 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing A.C. Lakshmipathy And Another vs A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar And Five Others on 14 November, 2000

D.Sivagnanam vs Thirugnanaprakasham on 9 February, 2010

23. A reading of Exs.A2 and A3-Reply Notices, dated 03.06.1981 and 5.6.1981 have proved that the sharers have not taken the possession of the property. But, it is stated a deed to be executed and registered. But admittedly, no document has been executed and registered evidencing partition. Ex.B6 came into existence on 17.07.1989. In Ex.B6, it was stated that the house property has been divided amongst themselves. It is only a agreement. It is not a partition deed and therefore, it will not create any estoppel. So, at this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision reported in 2001 (1) CTC 112, A.C.Lakshmipathy and another vs. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and five others, wherein this Court has held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 6 - R Mala - Full Document

Thilagavathy vs Mohammed Rabeek on 29 November, 2006

12. I am in agreement with the views expressed by my Learned Brother M.Thanickachalam,J., Though the judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the revision petitioner in 2001 (1) CTC 112 (AC.Lakshmipathy and Anr. v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and 6 Ors), still, the judgment of this Court in 2005 (4) MLJ 337 (Tmt.Indirani v. Seetharaman) relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent, which is supported by several decisions of the Apex Court as relied on by the learned Single Judge in the said decision, has to be followed, because the point is not which is the earlier or latter, but the point is which judgment discusses the point in issue directly involved in the particular case elaborately and accurately.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - S A Kumar - Full Document

Mercy Dharamaraj vs M.Gomathy on 26 April, 2007

96. While reading Exhibit A.2 as a whole, it is clear that it is a deed of family arrangement showing the past transaction of separate enjoyment of the properties amongst the parties shown therein. When the document is not creating any new right in the properties involved and in the transaction dealt with by the document it need not be registered, as held by this Court in A.C.LAKSHMIPATHY AND ANOTHER Vs. A.M.CHAKRAPANI REDDIAR AND FIVE OTHERS (2001 (1) CTC 112). It is clear that a document in the nature of a memorandum evidencing a family arrangement already entered into and which had been prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon in order that there are no hazy notions in future need not be stamped or registered. The non-production of the document marked as Exhibit A-2 before the Settlement Officer cannot give rise to any serious doubt with regard to its validity or with regard to its evidential value. Thus, the Lower Appellate Court had come to the right conclusion with regard to Exhibit A-2.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

Mercy Dharamaraj Bency Grace Ammal M. ... vs M. Gomathy And Ors. on 26 April, 2007

96. While reading Exhibit A.2 as a whole, it is clear that it is a deed of family Page 1357 arrangement showing the past transaction of separate enjoyment of the properties amongst the parties shown therein. When the document is not creating any new right in the properties involved and in the transaction dealt with by the document it need not be registered, as held by this Court in A.C. Lakshmipathy and Anr. v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and Five Ors. 2001 (1) CTC 112. It is clear that a document in the nature of a memorandum evidencing a family arrangement already entered into and which had been prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon in order that there are no hazy notions in future need not be stamped or registered. The non-production of the document marked as Exhibit A-2 before the Settlement Officer cannot give rise to any serious doubt with regard to its validity or with regard to its evidential value. Thus, the Lower Appellate Court had come to the right conclusion with regard to Exhibit A-2.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

K. Pattabiraman vs K. Banumathi And 4 Others on 29 June, 2001

In the light of the legal position referred to above, more particularly the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of A.C. Lakshmipathy v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar, 2001 (2) CTC 112 : 2000 (1) T.L.N. J. 315, I am of the view that clause VII therein is applicable to our case; accordingly partition schedule dated 29.08.1978 can be looked unto for collateral purpose. The contrary View expressed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the Prl..Subordinate Judge in I.A.No.597 of 2000 dated 12.07.2000 is hereby set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Venkatasubramaniya Chettiar (Died) vs Perumal Chettiar on 9 March, 2012

In 2001 (1) CTC 112 [A.C.Lakshmipathy and another v. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and five others], the Division Bench of this Court elaborately considered the family arrangement/unregistered partition. After referring to relevant provisions from Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Stamp Act, 1899 as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court and also the earlier decisions of this Court, the Division Bench held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - R Banumathi - Full Document

S.N.Dharman vs Elumalai on 26 September, 2012

In the judgment rendered in A.C.Lakshmipathy v. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar & others, 2001(1) CTC 112 : 2001(1) LW 257, the Division Bench of this Court, while construing a memorandum recording partial partition in the family which was sought to be marked, after elaborately discussing the entire issues relating to the Indian Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act and also the concept of estoppel, held that the document in question being unstamped and unregistered cannot be looked into for any purpose. In this regard the Division Bench has summed up the legal position as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Sasikumar vs R.Munuamy on 21 November, 2016

17.As per Section 17, the transaction specified in Section 17 issued by Registrar and the same should be marked as evidence in the case. Section 49 also clearly stated that admissibility of unregistered document relating to undivided properties as evidence in Court, such document could be received in evidence to establish collateral purpose only and not to establish title. Collateral purpose has to be decided according to facts of each case. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court stated that if the document is stamped, but not registered could be looked into for collateral purposes. But, in the present case in hand is not stamped, it is also not registered. Therefore, that document could not be marked as evidence of the defendants and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in A.C.Lakshmipathy and another v. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and five others reported in 2001 (1) CTC 212 has clearly held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next