Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)
Kuppusamy(Deceased) vs K.Palanisamy (Died) cites

Sahebzada Mohammad Kamgar Shah vs Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deoand ... on 21 April, 1960

A familiar in- stance of this is where in an earlier part of the document some property is given absolutely to one person but later on, other directions about the same property are given which conflict with and take away from the absolute title given in the earlier portion. What is to be done where this happens ? If is well settled that in case of such a conflict the earlier disposition of absolute title should prevail and the later directions of disposition should be disregarded as unsuccessful attempts to restrict the title already given. (See Sahebzada Mohd. Kamgar Shah v. Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deo). (1) It is clear, however, that an attempt should always be made to read the two parts of the document harmoniously, if possible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 87 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Puran Singh Sahni vs Smt. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani And ... on 20 February, 1991

In Puran Singh Sahni Vs. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani (SMT) and others, (cited supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while interpreting the agreement, the Court has to see what transpired before and after the agreement. Further it was held that the deed must be read as a whole in order to ascertain the true meaning of its several clauses, and the words of each clause should be so interpreted as to bring them into harmony with the other provisions of the deed if that interpretation does no violence to the meaning of which they are naturally susceptible. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 56 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1   2 Next