Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)
(Varnasi) Venkata Sastrulu And Anr. vs Kalluri Veerabhadrudu on 2 March, 1934 cites

Mathura Prasad vs Chandra Narayan Chowdhury on 21 March, 1921

1. This case (S.A. No. 241) illustrates forcibly the way in which the subordinate judiciary, I find, often misapplies the rule as to the fraud on the Registration Law laid down by the Privy Council Harendra Lal v. Haridasi Debi 1914 P.C. 67 and Mathura Prasd v. Chandra narayan 1921 P.C. 8. It is forgotten that, as in the case of every other kind of fraud, the party, who sets up this defence is bound to make it out by clear and cogent evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Marina Ammayi vs (Changanti) Sundayya And Ors. on 4 December, 1928

The crucial question in each case, as I observed in my judgment in Marina Ammayi v. Sundayya 1929 Mad. 432, is, was it intended or not that the document should take effect in regard to the particular item of property in dispute? The fact, that it is a fictitious item, may often furnish clear evidence of fraud, but when the item does exist, to invalidate a transaction on the ground that the party has not adduced satisfactory evidence as to his title, is to misunderstand and misapply the law on the subject.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1