Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
Annapoorani (Died) vs Muthusamy (Died) on 26 August, 2022 cites

H. Venkata Sastri And Sons By Its Manager ... vs Rahilna Bi And Ors. on 28 July, 1961

“26. The effect of subscribing a signature on the part of the scribe cannot in our view be identified to be of the same status as that of the attesting witnesses. The signature of the attesting witness as noticed above on a document, requiring attestation (admittedly in the case of a will the same is required), is a requirement of the statue, thus cannot be equated with that of scribe. The Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in V.Venkata Sastri and Sons V. Rahilna Bi wherein Ramachandra Iyer, J. speaking for the Full Bench in his inimitable style and upon reliance on Lord Campbell's observation in Burdett v. Spilsbury has the following to state pertaining to the meaning to be attributed to the word “attestation” (AIR pp 113- 14, paras 3-4) “(3). . . .The definition of the term “attested” which is almost identical with that contained in Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, has been the result of an 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.612 of 1996 amendment introduced by Act 27 of 1926. Prior to that amendment it was held by this Court that the word 'attested' was used only in the narrow sense of the attesting witness being present at the time of execution.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next