Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 46 (0.60 seconds)Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
R. Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) By L.Rs. And ... vs Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) By ... on 31 January, 1995
Therefore, on true interpretation of the document, as
referred to above, when read with the authoritative pronouncement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Rajagopal Reddy
(dead) by L.Rs. and others Vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead)
by L.Rs. (supra), it is to be held, that vide document Ex. D-1, no title
was passed on Smt. Sumitra Devi, and the property, on the death of
Sh. Rao Gajraj Singh, was to be inherited by all the legal heirs in
equal share i.e. 1/9th share each.
The Registration Act, 1908
Arulmigu Viswewaraswami And ... vs R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder And Anr. on 12 April, 1996
One of the reasons, for non-suiting the plaintiff / appellant
was, that the plaintiff had failed to prove, that the property was
owned by Sh. Rao Gajraj Singh, as only document in proof of
ownership produced was the house tax registers Ex. P-1 to P-4,
which were not the document to prove the title, in view of the law laid
down by this Court in the case of Premlata Vs. Bhupender Singh
(supra), and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the
case of Arulmigu Viswesharaswami Vs. R.V.E. Venkatachata
Goumder (supra).
Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976
The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale and
Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (supra)
to contend, that distinction should be made between the document
containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made
under the document and mere a memorandum prepared after the
family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of
the record or for information of the Court for making necessary
mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or
extinguish any rights in immovable property, and therefore does not
fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act.
Smt.Guro vs Atma Singh And Ors on 5 March, 1992
The suspicious circumstances pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellant, by placing reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Gopal Charan Mohanty
and Another Vs. Smt. Adarmani Mohanty and Others (supra),
judgments of this Court in the case of Kewal Krishan and others
R.S.A. No. 3937 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 9-C of 2006
-80-
Vs. Gurdev Chand (supra) and Jaswinder Singh and others Vs.
Kartar Singh and others (supra), Division Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Mohinder and Ors. Vs. Bugli Devi widow of
Nagina and Ors. (supra), judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Smt. Guro Vs. Shri Atma Singh and others (supra),
and Gurdial kaur and others Vs. kartar Kaur and others 1998(1)
PLJ 685, cannot be used to the advantage of the plaintiff / appellant.
Jaswinder Singh And Ors. vs Kartar Singh And Ors. on 7 January, 2004
In view of the judgments, on which reliance was placed by
the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
No.1, when read with the judgments relied upon by the learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the only
conclusion which can be arrived at is the one arrived at by this Court
in the case of Jaswinder Singh and others Vs. Kartar Singh and
others (supra), that is to say, that when due execution of the Will is
proved, and the suspicious circumstances are explained by the
propounder of the Will, the Will deserves to be accepted.
Gurbaksh Singh vs Jagat Singh on 3 September, 1993
The Hon'ble High Court
in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Jagat Singh (supra) was
pleased to lay down as under :-