Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.50 seconds)Section 2 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Mohesh Lal vs Busunt Kumaree on 15 June, 1880
In Mohesh Lal v. Busunt Kumaree, (1881) ILR 6 Cal 340, a question arose as to what "signature" meant in connection with Section 20 of the Limitation Act, No. IX of 1871. It was observed that "where a party to a contract signs his name in any part of it in such a way as to acknowledge that he is the party contracting, that is a sufficient signature". It was further observed that the document must be signed in such a way as to make it appear that the person signing it is the author of it, and if that appears it does not matter what the form of the instrument is, or in what part of it the signature occurs."
The Limitation Act, 1963
Indu Bala Bose & Ors vs Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr on 18 November, 1981
Reiterating the principles enunciated in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar, AIR 1959 SC 443 and certain other decisions rendered thereafter it was held in Indu Bala v. Manindra Chandra, AIR 1982 SC 133 :-
Mathura Das vs Babu Lal on 14 June, 1878
Mathura Das v. Babu Lal, (1878) ILR 1 All 683 was a case where a letter written by a duly authorised agent of Babu Lal, a Banker, was headed as "written by Babu Lal to Shah Banarsi Das" and the concluding portion of the letter was written by Babulal in his own handwriting but it was not signed by him. It was treated to contain an acknowledgment as contemplated by the Limitation Act on the ground that it is not the practice of the Hindu bankers to sign their letter at the foot. Their letters are ordinarily headed as stated above.
Ajit Chandra Majumdar vs Akhil Chandra Majumdar on 23 December, 1959
13. Ajit Chandra Majumdar v. Akhil Chandra Majumdar, AIR 1960 Cal 551 cited before us had been cited before the learned single Judge also. He has distinguished it by making the following observation with which we agree: --
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966
In Hindustan Construction Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 526 it was held:
Ram Dayal vs Brijraj Singh And Ors on 30 April, 1969
In Ram Dayal v. Brijraj Singh, AIR 1970 SC 110 while dealing with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the Rules framed thereunder it was held "signing, wherever signature is necessary, must be in strict accordance with the requirements of the Act and where the signature cannot be written it must be authorised in the manner prescribed in the Rule.''
Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors vs Govind Joti Chavare And Ors on 4 March, 1975
In Ramchandra v. Govind, AIR 1975 SC 915 it was held: