Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)Sita Devi vs Maharaja Kumar Gopal Saran Narayan ... on 16 April, 1928
Sita Devi v. Gopal Saran Narayan Singh 111 Ind. Cas.
Lakshminarayana Reddyar vs Subhadri Ammal on 15 August, 1902
Laxshminarayana Reddyar v. Subhadri Ammal. (1903) 13 Mad.
Dwarampudi Nagaratnamba vs Kunuku Ramayya & Anr on 19 July, 1967
762 = (AIR 1928 Pat 375) and Nagaratnamba v. Kunuku Ramayya, AIR 1968 SC 253.
Smt. Surasaibalini Debi vs Phanindra Mohan Majumdar on 27 October, 1964
392, Surasaibalini v. Phanindra Mohan, AIR 1965 SC 1364.
Immani Appa Rao And Others vs Gollapalli Ramalingamurthi And Ors on 22 September, 1961
Immani Appa Rao v. G. Ramalingamurthi, AIR 1962 SC 370 and Husseinali v. Dinbai, AIR 1924 Bom 135. He has tried to support the judgment of the first appellate court on another ground also which was not canvassed before it, namely that the gift deed Ex. 1 cannot be given effect to as it was not proved to have been attested by at least two witnesses as required by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act.
M. L. Abdul Jabhar Sahib vs H. V. Venkata Sastri & Sons & Ors on 4 February, 1969
Bithaldas v. Chandratan AIR 1955 Raj. 39, and Abdul Jabbar v. Venkata Sastri, AIR 1969 SC 1147.
Sabava Yellappa vs Yamanappa Sabu on 30 November, 1932
20. As already stated above the present is not a case where future cohabitation can be considered to be an object of the gift. The question of consideration also does not arise in the present case because the impugned transaction is a gift and consequently a transfer without consideration. The only question, therefore, for decision is whether the gift in question should be considered as invalid on account of its object being immoral or opposed to public policy or is otherwise unlawful within the meaning of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. 1872? The word 'object' obviously refers to some purpose or decision for which a transfer is made or as observed by Patkar J., in Sabava v. Yamanappa AIR 1933 Bom 209.