Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
V.A.L.R.M. Lakshmanan Chetty And Anr. vs V.A.L.R.M.L. Muthaya Chetty And Ors. on 16 September, 1919
ii)He relied on the Judgement reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 840
[U.N.Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased) through L.R.'s Vs.
A.M.Krishnamurthy], for the proposition that any suit for specific
performance, plaintiff has to prove that plaintiff is/was always ready and
willing to perform the contract. It is also to be ensured into as to whether
there is a valid agreement on sale. It is observed in this judgment that,
Section 16 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
S.P. Narayaaswami Pillai vs Dhanakoti Ammal on 1 April, 1965
"(xii) In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of
reported in MANU/TN/0313/1967 : AIR 1967 Madras 220
(V54 C 66) (1) : (1966) 79 L, W, 486 (S.B. Narayanswami
Pillai v. Dhanakoti Ammal) wherein, in paragraphs 5, 7, 8,
and 9 it is laid down as follows:
The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891
T.R.K. Saraswathy vs R. Kandasamy on 21 October, 2011
(ii) In the case of T.R.K.Saraswathy Vs. R.Kandasamy and others
reported in 2011 5 LW 756 (DB):-
1