Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.69 seconds)Section 33 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Abdus Samad vs Majitan Bibi And Anr. on 30 August, 1960
In view of the aforesaid legal position, we are of the considered view that
the law laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in D. Sardar Singh
v. Seth Pissumal Harbhagwandas Bankers [AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh
107] and the decision of Calcutta High Court in Abdus Samad v. Majitan
Bibi & Anr. [AIR 1961 Calcutta 540] with regard to the interpretation of
Section 32 and 33 of the Act is not the correct legal position.
Section 34 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 87 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 88 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 89 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sultan Ahmad Khan vs Sirajul Haque And Ors. on 24 September, 1937
In
support of his submission he relied upon decisions rendered by various
High Courts, viz., Motilal v. Ganga Bai [AIR 1915 Nagpur 18],
Gopeswar Pyne v. Hem Chandra Bose & Ors. [AIR 1920 Calcutta
316], Mt. Aisha Bibi v. Chhajju Mal & Ors. [AIR 1924 Allahabad
148], Sultan Ahmad Khan v. Sirajul Haque and Ors [AIR 1938 ALL
170], Ram Gopal v. L. Mohan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1960 Punjab 226] and
Sami Malti Vahuji Maharaj v. Purushottam Lal Poddar [AIR 1984
Calcutta 297].