Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.16 seconds)Section 81 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni on 6 December, 1935
Vide -- 'Tyagaraja Mudaliar v. Vedathanni', AIR 1936 PC 70 (E).
Rowland Ady vs The Administrator-General Of Burma on 3 May, 1938
Vide --'--Rowland Ady v. Administrator General of Burma', AIR 1938 PC 198 (G).
Harkisandas Bhagwandas vs Bai Dhanoo on 8 September, 1933
The situation that arose in that case was therefore described by their Lordships in these words at page 34:
The Registration Act, 1908
T.P. Petherpermal Chetty vs R. Muniandy Servai on 18 March, 1908
In such a case, it has been held by the Privy Council in -- 'Petherperumal Chetty v. Muniandi Servai', 35 Cal 551 (PC) (H), that if the contemplated fraud was not carried out and was not effected in whole or in part, there is nothing preventing the plaintiff from repudiating the transaction as being benami and recovering possession of the property. In such a case, the question really is not one under Section 92, Evidence Act, regarding proof of a collateral oral agreement under which B is to hold the property for the benefit of A but it is really a case where the transferor seeks to establish by attendant circumstances that he did not intend by his deed to dispose of the beneficial interest in the property to the transferee, and that therefore he must hold the property for his benefit.
Mottayappan Alias Selambia Goundan vs Palani Goundan And Anr. on 5 March, 1913
4. So that the addition contemplated must be an addition to the terms of the sale deed and not a collateral matter, which is added on by the agreement. It was therefore held that the oral agreement to reconvey in the case was provable, on the same reasoning, it would follow as was held in -- 'Mottayappan v. Palani Gounden', AIR 1915 Mad 855 (D), that an out and out gift cannot be altered by oral evidence into a will to take effect after the death of the donor. If the parties to a written agreement however wish to establish that they never agreed to contract on the terms set forth in the written document or that they did not intend to act upon the document oral evidence could be adduced to establish the same.
1