Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.45 seconds)Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
S.Kaladevi vs V.R.Somasundaram & Ors on 12 April, 2010
51. On the question of admissibility of Exhibit-1, 2 and 3 in
evidence, it was argued by the learned Counsel Mr. Jorgay Namka
that the documents although being documents for transfer of land,
were unregistered in contravention of Notification bearing No. 385/G
dated 11 April, 1928 and Notification No. 2947/G dated 22
November, 1946 and are therefore inadmissible in evidence. That, the
learned Trial Court has erred in its interpretation of S. Kaladevi vs.
V.R. Somasundaram & Other's AIR 2010 SC 1654, while allowing
Exhibits-1, 2 and 3 in evidence on grounds that they are for the
purpose of identification of the plots and boundaries.
Section 20 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Bishnu Kumar Rai vs Minor Mahendra Bir Lama And Ors. on 18 July, 2005
61. Although, Mr. N. Rai sought to substantiate his argument of
there being no requirement of registration of Exhibits-1, 2 and 3 by
placing reliance on Bishnu Kumar Rai vs. Minor Mahendra Bir Lama
and Ors. AIR 2005 Sikkim 3. On careful perusal of the said Judgment, I
find that the document in question in the said matter was found to be
only a Money Receipt.