Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)
K. Nagarathinam And Anr. vs K. Rajammal on 22 August, 1986 cites

Nanda Lal Dhur Biswas vs Jagat Kishore Acharjya Chowdhuri on 17 July, 1916

Before their Lorships consider the circumstances in which that attestation took place, they think it is desirable to emphasise once more that attestation of a deed by itself estops a man from denying nothing whatever excepting that he has witnessed the execution by implication; any knowledge of the contents of the document, and it ought not to be put forward alone for the purpose of establishing that a man consented to the transaction which the document effects. It is, of course, possible, as was pointed out by their Lordships in the case of Banga Chandra Dhur Biswas v. Jagath Kishore Chowdri (1916) 31 M.L.J. 563 : (1916) L.R. 48 I.A. 249 : 4 L.W. 458 L.A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 110, that an attestation may take place in circumstances which would show that the witness did in fact know all the contents of the document, but no such knowledge ought to be inferred from the mere fact of the attestation.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Ramaswamy Gounder, Chinnasami Gounder ... vs Anantapadmanabha Iyer on 21 December, 1967

8. Though a Division Bench of this Court in Jagannatha Pillai v. Kunjithapatham Pillai has approved the decision in Ramaswami Gounder v. Ananthapadmanabha Iyer (1971) 84 L.W. 176 the Division Bench has also pointed out that mere attestation proved no more than that the signature of an executing party has been attached to a document in the presence of the attesting witnesses.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Bhagwan Singh vs Ujagar Singh on 2 December, 1927

Bhagwan Singh v. Ujagar Singh A.I.R. 1928 P.C. 20 : 27 L.W. 672 : 54 M.L.J. 254. In the former case, the Privy council had to consider a converse situation where a person put his signature to a document not in the capacity as a witness but as signifying his approval of the transaction, and it was held that he was not an attesting witness. In the latter case, the Privy Council held that the attestation of a deed by itself estops a man from denying nothing whatever except that he witnessed the execution of the deed and by itself it does not show that he consented to the transaction which the document effects.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Jayarama Chandra Iyer vs Thulasi Ammal And Ors. on 11 February, 1975

In spite of the said decision of the Privy Council, there are some cases decided by this Court in which attestation has been held to bind the attestor on the basis of the law of estoppel - evidence Ramaswami Gounder v. Ananthapadmanabha Iyer (1971) 84 L.W. 176; Jayarama Chandra Iyer v. Thulasi Ammal (1975) 88 L.W. 549 and Narayanasami Padayachi v. Sambanda Mudaliar (1977) 90 L.W. 37 (S.N.) But in all these cases it was found 6n the facts that the person who attested the document was a consenting party.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

The Singanallur Municipality vs The Vasantha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore And ... on 8 July, 1976

Learned Counsel was fair enough to say that some of the decisions referred to by him were against him; but he had referred to them in order to give a complete list of the authorities upto date, though the number of decisions cited is somewhat large, the principle laid down in all the decisions is the same. After analysing all those decisions, I find that they lay down the proposition that if it is shown to the court that an attesting witness was a consenting party to a particular transaction, he would be estopped from questioning the effectiveness of the said transaction, on a later occasion on the ground that he was not a party thereto, though some of the decisions proceed on the footing that there is a sort of usage in this part of the country to obtain the signature of a party as an attesting witness whenever his consent is required for the said transaction. In all these cases, an inference has been drawn from all the facts and circumstances of the cases that the attesting witnesses therein were really consenting to the transaction in question.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - P S Kailasam - Full Document
1