Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.79 seconds)
Venkatamma W/O Late Krishna Reddy vs Subba Reddy S/O Late Doddappa Reddy on 2 April, 2013 cites

Umakanta Rao vs Lalitabai on 24 June, 1988

In the case of UMAKANT RAO'S VS. LALITABAI & OTHERS reported in 1998 (2) KAR.L.J. 155 it has been held: if there is partition of joint family properties in addition to immovable properties mentioned therein is worth more than ` 100/- it is required to be registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 2908, and as such it could not have been considered as a valid document. In the 47 very same judgment it has also been held that if several other matters which do not require to be registered is also included therein and though the document is inadmissible in evidence to prove that partition was effected between defendant Nos.1 and 3 therein, becomes admissible only to prove that the members of the family were in possession of the joint family properties. In other words Division Bench of this Court has held that for collateral purposes the document can be looked into.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976

29. Sri G.L.Vishwanath, learned counsel appearing for defendant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of KALE AND OTHERS VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS reported in 1976 (3) SCR 202 whereunder it has been held that assuming that family arrangement was compulsorily registerable, said arrangement would be binding on the parties to it and would operate as an estoppel by preventing the parties to resile from the same or try to revoke it after having taken advantage under the arrangement. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of the law laid down by the Apex Court and Division Bench as well as Coordinate Bench of this Court in the above judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 687 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 3 Next