Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Ningawwa vs Byrappa & 3 Ors on 17 January, 1968
In NINGAWWA Vs. BYRAPPA SHIDDAPPA HIREKNRABAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1968 SC 956), it was held that a contract or other transaction induced or tainted by fraud is not void, but only voidable at the option of the party defrauded. Until it is avoided, the transaction is valid, so that third parties without notice of the fraud may in the meantime acquire rights and interests in the matter which they may enforce against the party defrauded. The legal position will be different if there is fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of the document but as to its character. With reference to the former, the transaction is void, while in the case of the latter, it is merely voidable.
Tetali Sooramma vs Kovvuri Venkayya (Died) And Ors. on 10 March, 1938
In TETALI SOORAMMA Vs. KOVVURI VENKAYYA (A.I.R.1938 MADRAS 589), it was held that where the plaintiff suing for sale of certain property on the basis of a mortgage executed in his favour, alleges that the property is wrongly described and incidentally prays for rectification of the mistake, he is entitled on proof of his title to the relief for sale of the property which was agreed to be morgaged, even though his right to sue for rectification of the mortgage deed is barred by limitation. Art.96, of the Limitation Act has no application to such a case. No question of limitation arises as the substantial relief prayed for by the plaintiff is not rectification of the deed, but some other relief which the plaintiff is entitled to claim under the law on the basis of the transaction which he seeks to enforce.
Gurdev Kaur & Ors vs Kaki & Ors on 18 April, 2006
25. On analysing the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that there is nothing shown on behalf of the appellants for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below as held by the Supreme Court in GURDEV KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. KAKI AND OTHERS (2007 (1) CTC 334). Relying on the evidence available, both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have come to the conclusion that there was an element of fraud in the description of the property intended to be purchased by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.1019 of 1988, on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore. The Courts below had found that there was no access to the B schedule property which the plaintiff is said to have purchased. Further, the Courts below had found that the suit filed by the plaintiff, praying for the relief of rectification of the sale deed, dated 7.11.1984, is within time as it was not affected by the law of limitation, since it had been filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the mistake that had happened in the description of the property in the sale deed, dated 7.11.1984.
Article 96 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 31 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Marappureddigari Sayamma And Anr. vs R. Venkata Reddi And Ors. on 4 March, 1931
In MARAPPUREDDIGARI SAYAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs. R.VENKATA REDDI AND OTHERS (LXI MLJ 437), it was held that "one test which equity applies in a suit for rectification is "Is the proof of error clear and conclusive?" One defence equity allows is laches. Equity will not relieve him who tarries on the way. One bias equity always shows in such matters, viz., a bias in favour of the evidence given by the other party to the instrument; that is to say, the burden of proof lies heavily on the person seeking rectification."
A. Rajaram vs M.B. Pranesh, I.A.S., Principal ... on 25 January, 2006
In RAJARAM Vs. MANIK (A.I.R.(39) 1952 NAGPUR 90), it was held that the power which the Court possesses of reforming written agreements where there has been an ommission or insertion of stipulations contrary to the intention of the parties and under a mutual mistake, should be used with extreme care and caution. To substitute a new agreement for one which the parties have deliberately subscribed ought only to be permitted upon evidence of a different intention of the clearest and most satisfactory description. A person who seeks to rectify a deed upon the ground of mistake must be required to establish, in the clearest and most satisfactory manner, that the alleged intention to which he desires it to be made conformable continued concurrently in the minds of all parties down to the time of its execution, and also must be able to show exactly and precisely the form to which the deed ought to be brought. For there is a material difference between setting aside an instrument and rectifying it on the ground of mistake. In the latter case you can only act upon the mutual and concurrent intention of all parties for whom the Court is virtually making a new written agreement.
Atmaram Maneklal Parikh vs Bai Hira on 23 February, 1948
In PARIKH ATMARAM Vs. BAI HIRA (A.I.R. (35) 1948 PRIVY COUNCIL 111), it was held that when the ground for setting aside the instrument is that the plaintiff did not appreciate its true nature and legal consequences, the limitation begins to run from the date when the plaintiff became aware of the true nature and legal consequences of the instrument.
Noorudin Esmailji Kurwa vs Mahomed Umar Subrati on 13 April, 1939
In NOORUDIN Vs. MAHOMED UMAR (A.I.R.1940 BOMBAY 321), it was held that mere laches is not a bar to a suit for rectification of deed on ground of mutual mistake if the rights of third parties have not intervened. The date of the notice of the mistake is the date from which time runs.