Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.59 seconds)K.J.Nathan vs S. V. Maruty Reddy And Others on 11 February, 1964
," the learned Counsel for the appellant Bank has argued that in para 10 of the above ruling K.J. Nathan v. S.V. Maruthi Rao (supra), Hon'blc Apex Court has observed as under:
Veerammal And Anr. vs Kr. L. Lakshmanan Chettiar And Anr. on 20 November, 1959
In the ruling Veerammal v. K.R.L. Lakshmanan Chettiar (supra) in para 4 Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed that:
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Rangabati vs United Bank Of India Ltd. And Anr. on 11 April, 1960
In my opinion, the present is governed by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case noticed before. Considered in the light of the principles laid down there, the proper construction of Exhibit 1(c) is that it is nothing but a memorandum merely recording particulars of the title-deeds deposited earlier with the plaintiff, and that it was merely a list of the documents already deposited and nothing more. It did not at all embody the terms of the agreement between the parties and, therefore, it did not require registration.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1