Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (7.18 seconds)Shamu Patter vs Abdul Kadir Ravuthan And Ors. on 28 January, 1908
2. According to the definition of "attestation," as interpreted by the Privy Council in the case of Shambu Patter v. Abdul Kadir Bowthan [1912] 35 Mad. 607, the attesting witness, in order to prove legal attestation of a document, must have seen the executant put his signature to the document and, in that view, it should have been held, as the appellant contends, that the document was not properly attested.
Hurro Sundari Dabia vs Chunder Kant Bhuttacharjee on 14 May, 1880
6. With regard to the question of wills : this has been held to be a proper attestation from a very early date : see the cases of Hurro Sundari Dabia v. Ghunder Kant Bhuttaeharjee [1881] 6 Cal.
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Kashi Nath Chatterjee vs Amarendra Nath Chatterjee And Anr. ... on 24 July, 1899
17 and Amarendra Nath Ghatterjee v. Kasi Nath Chatterjee [1900] 27 Cal. 169. There was some difference of opinion between this Court and other High Courts as to whether this new Act 27 of 1926 applies to transactions which had taken place before the passing of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court seems to have been of opinion that it was not applicable to such transactions. A later Act, however, was passed, viz., Act 10 of 1927, which is described as an Act to amend certain enactments and to repeal certain other enactments. It has been enacted with regard to the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 1926, that in Section 2 in the definition of the word "attested," after the word "means" the words "and shall be deemed always to have meant" shall be inserted. This leaves no doubt in the construction of the Act, that it should be applied to all transactions, however ancient they may be, to which the Transfer of Property Act itself is applicable.
1