Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Ramanathan Chetti And Ors. vs Delhi Batcha Tevar Alias Udayana Tevar ... on 11 February, 1930 cites

Radha Mohun Dutt vs Nripendra Nath Nandy And Ors. on 28 June, 1927

In this connection Radha Mohan Dutta v. Nripendra Nath Nandy (1927) 47 C.L.J. 118 was referred to. In that case, it was held that judicial notice should be taken of the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar and his signature. In that case there were two witnesses to the mortgage deed whose names appeared as attesting witnesses. In the Registration Office the mortgagor acknowledged execution of the deed before the Sub-Registrar and the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar was to the effect that execution was admitted by the mortgagor. It was held that the acknowledgment before the Sub-Registrar and the signature below the endorsement on the deed amounted to sufficient attestation within the meaning of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act as amended by the Amendment Act XXVII of 1926. From a reading of the facts of the case it appears that the admission of the execution of the document was made to the Sub-Registrar only and he therefore was the only witness to that admission. The Calcutta High Court therefore considered that the endorsement by the Sub-Registrar that the admission had been made in his presence was sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act and must be taken as being correct. But according to Section 2 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act there must be two witnesses to the admission by the executant although they need not both be present at the same time.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Veerappa Chettiar vs Subrahmania Aiyar And Ors. on 4 September, 1928

(2) Whether the witnesses who identified the executants before the Sub-Registrar were present when such admission of execution was made by the executant? and (3) Whether they or either of them made their signature in the presence of the executants? 'In compliance with this order the Subordinate Judge sent up the following findings: On the first issue he found that the Sub-Registrar who registered Ex. A made his signature in the registration endorsement referring to the admission of the execution by the executants of the document in the presence of the executants; on the second issue, he found that the witnesses who identified the executants of Ex. A before the Sub-Registrar were present when the admission of execution of that document was made by the executants; and on the third issue, he found that both the identifying witnesses made their signatures in the presence of the executants of Ex. A. On these findings a reference was made to a Full Bench which answered the questions referred to it in the manner already stated, in my view, this case does not assist the appellants because according to the findings of the Subordinate Judge in that case, the provisions of Section 2 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act were strictly complied with. The difficulty with which the appellants are faced here is that there is no evidence on the face of the document to show that the signatures of both or either of the witnesses to the admission of execution by Vengu Nachiar and Boothaka Nachiar were affixed to the document in the presence of the admitting executants.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1