Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)Girindra Nath Mukerjee vs Bejoy Gopal Mukerjee And Ors. on 8 September, 1898
In answer to these arguments, it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the view taken in the cases of Girindra Nath v. Bijoy Gopal 26 C. 246 : 3 C.W.N. 84 and Abdul Karim v. Salimun 27 C. 190 is erroneous, that the contrary view adopted in Ramji Haribhai v. Bei Parvati 27 B. 91 and Ganga Dei v. Shiam Sundar 26 A. 69 ought to be adopted, that in any event, on the analogy of cases relating to the attestation of Wills, it is not necessary to prove that the attesting witness saw the execution of the deed, but that it is sufficient compliance with the law, if the document is executed in his presence; and finally, that when the document is jointly executed by more than one person in the presence of each other, each executants may be treated as an attesting witness in respect of the signature of every other executants.
Shamu Patter vs Abdul Kadir Ravuthan And Ors. on 28 January, 1908
It may further be pointed out that the Madras High Court has recently adopted the Calcutta view in Shamu Pattar v. Abdul Kadir 31 M. 215 : 3 M.L.T. 300 : 18 M.L.J. 219, and in Bombay also, where the opposite view had been adopted there is a tendency to revert to the Calcutta view.
Ranu Shivji Barate vs Laxmanrao Krishna on 14 August, 1908
Ranu v. Laxmanrao 10 Bom.
Section 20 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1