Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Uma vs M/S.Salem Sowdambiga Finance on 17 December, 2008 cites

A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007

19. Again in A.V.Papayya Sastry Vs. Government of A.P. {2007 (4) SCC 221}, the Supreme Court reiterated that even a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. If this is the fate of even a judgment of a Court obtained by fraud, it is needless to point out that a Will, executed out of a fraudulent intent to defraud the creditor, cannot also be taken to be valid in the eye of law. Such a Will may not come within the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, but it does not mean that anything that falls outside section 53 is no mischief.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 629 - C K Thakker - Full Document

S. Rathinam @ Kuppamuthu & Ors vs L.S. Mariappan & Ors on 18 May, 2007

In support of the said contention, Mr.R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in S.Rathinam @ Kuppamuthu and Others Vs. L.S.Mariappan and Others {2008-1-L.W. 23}. While considering the question whether the right to manage a temple can be the subject matter of testamentary succession, it was held by the Supreme Court in the said decision in paragraphs-21 and 34 that a Will is not a transfer, but a mode of devolution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 21 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Valliammal vs S. Arumugha Gounder And Another on 3 January, 2001

23. Though on general principles, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct, it cannot be accepted as having universal application, for all types of situations. Valliammal's case arose out of a suit for recovery of possession filed by Valliammal's husband against a person who was a Lessee of the property. The Lessee did not question either the title of his Lessor Sivasubramania Sastriyar or the title of Valliammal's husband, who purchased it from Sastriyar. After the institution of the proceedings, Valliammal's husband died and she was brought on record, on the basis of the Will. Thereafter she withdrew the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and came up with the next suit. In that next suit, the Lessee questioned the validity of the Will. It is under such circumstances that this Court held that the Lessee of the property had no right to challenge the validity of the Will. As a matter of fact, Valliammal examined the attestors to the Will to prove the Will and on facts, this Court held in paragraph-16 of the said judgment that "there is nothing to warrant a conclusion that the Will appears to be unnatural or Will could not have been executed by the Testator, while in a sound and disposing state of mind."
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 Next