Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.32 seconds)
C.S. Kumaraswami Gounder vs Aravagiri Gounder And Anr. on 10 April, 1973 cites

N. Varada Pillai vs Jeevarathnammal on 20 June, 1919

17. Varada Pillai v. Jeevaratnammal, 46 Ind App 285 = ILR 43 Mad 244 = (AIR 1919 PC 44) dealt with a case of gift. The question there was whether there had been a valid gift of immovable property and whether the donee had acquired title by adverse possession. After referring to certain petitions reciting a gift which had been presented to the Collector praying for the registration of the properties in the name of the donee, the Judicial Committee held that, as a gift of immovable property as required to be made by a registered deed under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitions could not be used as evidence of title, but it was permissible for the court to look at them to ascertain the nature or character of the possession held by the person named in the petitions. The Judicial Committee referred to the question for consideration as follows-
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 157 - Full Document

Mst. Kirpal Kaur vs Bachan Singh And Others on 15 November, 1957

14. Mr. Parasaran contended that none of the decisions referred to in the above passage dealt with a case of partition and that therefore those decisions could not be said to be authority for the view that an unregistered partition deed was admissible to prove the adverse character of the possession of one of the parties. Mr. Parasaran also invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kirpal Kaur v. Bachan Singh, , as taking the view that an unregistered partition deed could not be received in evidence for such a purpose. We are unable to accept this argument of Mr. Parasaran.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 31 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Subbu Naidu And Ors. vs Varadarajulu Naidu And Ors. on 15 November, 1946

13. We called upon Mr. Parasaran to show any authority of any court taking a contrary view. As a matter of fact, as far as this court is concerned, there is a direct decision of a Bench of this court in Subbu Naidu v. Varadarajulu Naidu, 1947-1 Mad LJ 90 = (AIR 1948 Mad 26). That case dealt with a koorchit which the court considered to be a deed of partition, which was not registered. This court, while holding that the document could not be received in evidence for proving the terms of the deed of partition, held that it could be received in evidence for proving the character of the possession of the properties in the hands of the respective members of the family. This is what this court pointed out:
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next