Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)
Mr. Mittinti Narasimhamurti And Anr. vs Pandiri Satyanandam ... on 14 March, 1941 cites

Manickam Pillai vs Audinarayana Pillai And Ors. on 12 January, 1910

As pointed out in Manickam Pillai v. Audinarayana Pillai (1910) 20 M.L.J. 407 : I.L.R. 34 Mad. 47, there is a good deal of difference between wideness of language and vagueness or indefiniteness of language. We are of opinion that in this case there is no real force in the objection that the charge created by the decree is void for uncertainty or that the property to which the charge relates is not specific. That being the case, it follows that the charge given by the decree was executable and the petition ought not to have been dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the charge was not executable. No other objection appears to have been pressed in the Court below to the prayer of the appellants being granted. The appeal is therefore allowed with costs in both the Courts.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Deojit vs Pitambar And Ors. on 11 August, 1876

In Deojit v. Pitambar (1876) I.L.R. 1 All. 275, stress is laid on Section 29 of the Contract Act according to which an agreement is void if its meaning is not certain or capable of being made certain and on Section 93 of the Evidence Act to the effect that where the language of a deed is on its face ambiguous or defective, no evidence can be given to make it certain. Applying the principles embodied in these provisions of law, we have no doubt that the words found in the decree with which. we are concerned, are neither ambiguous nor uncertain. There is no reason why description of property by survey number, extent, boundaries, etc., should be insisted upon on pain of the charge being held to be void for uncertainty. It cannot be contended that if a man creates a charge on his own house and all that it contains, it would be void for uncertainty or that any charge created on a person's property in a particular village would be void for uncertainty. Again, if a man says that his properties in all the villages should be charged with any particular liability, there is no reason why the charge should be declared to be void for uncertainty. Indeed we are not able to find any good reason for regarding cases of this kind as being open to the objection of uncertainty or indefiniteness.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1