Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.01 seconds)
Sandeep Kumar Jain vs Ved Prakash Verma And Ors on 23 December, 2025 cites

Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni on 6 December, 1935

In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India placed reliance on the judgment of Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni (1936) 38 BOMLR 373. The said judgment further elaborates upon the admissibility of parol evidence admissible u/s 92 of Indian Evidence Act. In the said judgment passed by the Ld. Privy Council, was called upon to decide the question as to whether under the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence was inadmissible to establish that it had been agreed that the provisions for the plaintiff's maintenance were not to be acted on, as the document was only intended to create evidence of the undivided status of the family. It was a case where one of the parties was trying to give oral evidence to show that the written agreement between the parties was no agreement in reality and therefore, there was no contract between them.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 72 - Full Document

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011

37. It can be argued that D-1 had validly appointed D-2 as his attorney vide Ex.PW1/8 and thereafter, D-2, acting on the same could sell the property to plaintiff. Even if the said argument is taken on its face value and it is presumed that D-2 was only acting as attorney of D-1 when she executed documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6, still, the said documents themselves cannot make plaintiff the owner of the suit property. This is in view of the ratio of Suraj Lamp's (supra) as noted above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1760 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Asha M. Jain vs The Canara Bank And Ors. on 15 October, 2001

"15. Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank - 94 (2001) DLT 841, that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 399 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Gangabai W/O Rambilas Gilda vs Chhabubai W/O Pukharajji Gandhi on 6 November, 1981

In Gangabai vs Chhabubai AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 20, 1982 (1) SCC 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with a CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 21 of 37 case wherein the appellant was relying upon a sale deed; while the respondent was contending that the said document was never an actual sale and in fact, she had taken a loan from appellant with an understanding that she should execute a nominal document of sale with the rent note. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was presented with the argument that u/s 92(1) of Indian Evidence Act, the respondent therein was restrained from contending that there was no sale and no oral evidence to the contrary should be admitted in evidence. While answering the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 147 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1   2 Next