Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (2.09 seconds)Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 122 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors on 2 May, 2006
20. When a registered document is executed and the executors are aware
of the terms and nature of the document, a presumption arises in regard to
the correctness thereof. [See Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. (2006)
5 SCC 353]
When such a presumption is raised coupled with the recitals in regard
to putting the donee in possession of the property, the onus should be on the
donor and not on the donee.
Gangabai W/O Rambilas Gilda vs Chhabubai W/O Pukharajji Gandhi on 6 November, 1981
In Smt. Gangabai v. Smt. Chhabubai [AIR 1982 SC 20], wherein also
reliance has been placed by Mr. Iyer, it was held that the bar created under
Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act would operate unless it
comes within the purview of the exceptions specified therein. Therein the
question which arose for consideration related to the nature of transaction
and not the terms of the grant.
Smt. Sanjukta Ray vs Bimelendu Mohanty And Ors. on 15 October, 1996
14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or
compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to
constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however,
notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular
mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction
which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various
means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a
donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance.
The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a
presumption of acceptance. [See Sanjukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty AIR
1997 Orissa 131, Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi, AIR 1995 Mad 415 and
Samrathi Devi v. Parsuram Pandey AIR 1975 Patna 140]
Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni on 6 December, 1935
30. Mr. Iyer places reliance on Tyagaraja Mudaliyar and another v.
Vedathanni [AIR 1936 PC 70] wherein again correctness or otherwise of the
nature of document itself was in question and in that view of the matter
adduction of oral evidence was not held to be a bar in terms of Section 91 of
the Indian Evidence Act.
Kamakshi Ammal vs Rajalakshmi And Others on 7 February, 1995
14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or
compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to
constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however,
notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular
mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction
which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various
means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a
donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance.
The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a
presumption of acceptance. [See Sanjukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty AIR
1997 Orissa 131, Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi, AIR 1995 Mad 415 and
Samrathi Devi v. Parsuram Pandey AIR 1975 Patna 140]