Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sridhara babu. N
DISCLAIMER
The Information provided regarding legal subjects
in my series of blogs /scribd documents is only for
general awareness, Iam not responsible for any
consequence through use or misuse of the same.
All documents are drafted for specific needs, there
is no guarantee or warrantee if its copied for any
such
similar
causes.
Errors
and
omissions
DOCUMENTS
are
designed
for
general
are
encouraged
to
seek
for
mere
reference,
please
visit
such
Sridhara babu. N
from
another
source
if
it
is
of
Sridhara babu. N
an
officer
of
police,
before
whom
any
or
comes
in
the
performance
of
his
that
instruments
not
duly
stamped
are
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Commissioner
to
stamp
instruments
the
instrument
Deputy
under
Commissioner
Section
33,
impounds
any
receives
any
or
Sridhara babu. N
PERMITTED
TO
BE
USED
EVEN
FOR
COLLATERAL PURPOSE
JUSTICE B. Padmaraj, of Karnataka High Court, in
the case of Jayalakshmi Reddy vs Thippanna And
Ors. Reported in
KarLJ 263
to
sell
his
immovable
property
for
Sridhara babu. N
which
Karnataka
the
proper
Stamp
Act
duty
is
the
payable
same
under
duty
as
the
a
Sridhara babu. N
must
contain
all
the
essentials
of
Sridhara babu. N
or
assign
of
such
person,
agent,
representative or assign duly authorised by power-ofattorney executed and authenticated in the manner
provided by Section 33. In case a document is
presented for registration by a person other than a
party to it or his legal representative or assign or by a
person who is not an agent authorised in the manner
prescribed under Section 33 such presentation is
wholly
imperative
and
presentation
of
such
Sridhara babu. N
direct
relation
to
the
deed".
If
the
Sridhara babu. N
affecting
immovable
property
shall
be
presented for registration in the office of a subregistrar within whose sub-district the whole or some
portion of the property to which such document relates
is situate.
CASE LAWS ON THE POINT
Justice Pratibha Bonnerjea, of Calcutta High Court in
the case of
Sridhara babu. N
before
registration
and
he
admitted
signed
the
the
document
endorsement.
for
am
Calcutta High
proper
Registration
Office
by
some
person
Sridhara babu. N
that
while
Section
32
empowers
the
of
Attorney
to
be
executed
before
and
Sridhara babu. N
authorises
his
agent,
representative
or
of
Attorney
would
be
required
to
be
Sridhara babu. N
executed
and
authenticated
in
manner
Sridhara babu. N
altered
and the
not
one
merely
of
procedure,
but
one
of
Sridhara babu. N
holds
power-or-attorney
satisfying
the
Sridhara babu. N
OF
HIS
WIFE
DEFRAUDING
THE
LAND
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
with
the
registration
of
the
same.
Sridhara babu. N
referred to
Para 16
Para 16
Para 16
Para 16
referred to
Para 16
Para 16
Para 17
Para 17
relied on Para 20
referred to
Para 23
Sridhara babu. N
OWNERS
PROPERTY-WITHOUT
Sridhara babu. N
JUSTICE
Raveendran
in
the
case
of
M.
Sridhara babu. N
by
holding
transaction
covered
by
case
of
Veerabhadrappa
And
Anr.
vs
Sridhara babu. N
Venkatarama
Reddi
v.
Pillati
Rama
Reddy,
ILR
Sridhara babu. N
time
from
which
the
registered
document
case
of
Veerabhadrappa
And
Anr.
vs
case
of
Veerabhadrappa
And
Anr.
vs
Sridhara babu. N
Court held
Sridhara babu. N
complies
with
all
the
provisions
of
Registration Act, 1908, it is not open to the SubRegistrar to refuse registration of the document unless
he exercises that discretion pursuant to any provision
in the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law or Rule
having the force of law. The mere registration of a
document is by itself not a proof of its validity, neither
does it follow that the executant had title to the
property, he seeks to dispose of under the document.
Matters such as relating to title have to be decided
before
the
appropriate
is
Sridhara babu. N
RUN
FROM
THE
DATE
OF
THE
KNOWLEDGE
Justice K.L. Manjunath, J. in the case of Leelavathi
vs M. Neelakanta Naidu, Reported in ILR 2006 KAR
4637, 2006 (6) KarLJ 617
whether
any
third
party
has
executed
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
matter
in
submitting
his
report
regarding
respondent
should
not
have
made
an
Purnima
Devi
And
Another
vs
Kumar
without
scrutiny
of
the
evidence
of
Sridhara babu. N
NOTARIES
ARE
ABSOLUTELY
MISUSING
THE
(Dy.
General
Manager,
Re-designated
As
Sridhara babu. N
MORE
ABOUT
NOTARY
BEFORE
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
empowered
to
appoint
Notary-Public
under
Central
Government
to
appoint
any
legal
Section
15
of
the
Notaries
Act,
1952
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
original
and
the
prima
facie
scrutiny
of
Sridhara babu. N
2006
(10
Sridhara babu. N
Subject to
Sridhara babu. N
2003
(2
Court
Sridhara babu. N
ought,
under
the
circumstances
of
that
Sridhara babu. N
but
suspicion
alone
cannot
form
the
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
transfer
must
be
effected
by
registered
Sridhara babu. N
OWNERSHIP
CAN
BE
GIFTED
WITHOUT
ITS
It
Sridhara babu. N
ACCEPTANCE OF GIFT
The
Supreme
Court
in K.Balakrishnan
v.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
there
was
complete
intention
to
divest
Sridhara babu. N
to
agricultural
land)
regarding
intestate
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
v. STATE OF HARYANA,
Sridhara babu. N
thereof
is essential.
The
Transfer of
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
15
wherein
it
is
held
that
unqualified
Sridhara babu. N
of
documents.
Registration
provides
Sridhara babu. N
with
immovable
property
can
rely
with
the
property
may
be
affected
and
secure
fundamentally
different
situation
which
Sridhara babu. N
SETTLEMENT DEED
A.Sreenivasa Pai and another v. Saraswathi Ammal
alias G. Kamala Bai, AIR 1965 SC 1359 in which the
Supreme Court considered the document to be a
settlement deed and held that the death of the ultimate
beneficiary during the life time of the life estate holder
will not have the effect of defeating the right which had
already vested on the beneficiary.
Sridhara babu. N
PLEA
OF
UNDUE
INFLUENCE
TO
BE
SPECIFFICALLY PLEADED
Ku. Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 1274
wherein it was held that absence of consideration in a
gift is an essential element. In Afsar Sheikh v. Soleman
Bibi, (1976) 2 SCC 142 : (AIR 1976 SC 163) it was held
that plea of undue influence cannot be made out from
the general allegations in the plaint if not specifically
pleaded.
In Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prosad Das
Mushib, AIR 1967 SC 878 it was held that no
presumption of undue influence can arise merely
because parties were nearly related to each other or
merely because
donor
was an old
or of weak
character.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
make
clear
misrepresentation
distinction
as
to
the
between
contents
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
v.
State
of
Bihar,
AIR 1954
SC
165;
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Section
23
of
the Contract
Act.
In
Firm
of
Sridhara babu. N
"Voidable
acts
are
those
which
can
be
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Court has held '9. ... The main Part of Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act puts on obligation on the party
tendering any document that unless at lest one
attesting witness has been called for proving such
execution the same shall not be used in evidence'.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Court examined a
Sridhara babu. N
lead
not
only
to
improbabilities
and
Sridhara babu. N
register
prepared
under
the
Rules
and
Sridhara babu. N
as
in
any
other
civil
or
criminal
cases.
Sridhara babu. N
the
person
having
special
means
of
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
outside
the
clear
language
used
in
the
GIFT DEED
Sridhara babu. N
act
not
necessary
as
express
presumption
arises
in
regard
to
the
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
consider
the
attendant
circumstances
the
Sridhara babu. N
Bhimappa
Koujageri
vs
Bhimappa
Sridhara babu. N
REQUISITE
PERMISSION
AND
LIMITATION
Rojasara Ramjibhai Dahyabhai v. Jani Narottamdas
Lallubhai (dead) by L.Rs and Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1912 :
(1986)3 SCC 300. Under an agreement of sale there
was a precondition to obtain the permission of the
authorities to use the subject property as a village site,
for the execution of a sale deed. The Court held that
such a contract was not a contingent contract and that
a suit for specific performance filed within 3 years after
obtaining permission was not barred by limitation.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
AIR 1992
SC
1236,
there
was
no
TITLE
UNAMBIGUOUS
IS
GIVEN
TERMS
IN
AND
CLEAR
THE
AND
LATER
reported
in
A.I.R
1963
S.C
890
1.
Sridhara babu. N
and
proper
to
give
the
same
strict
equally
skilled
in
the
art
of
conveyancing.
Sridhara babu. N
provisions
trench
on
the
same,
that
the
later-
CHINNATHAYI
v.
KULASEKHARA
PANDIYA
NAICKER AND ORS. 1952 AIR 29, 1952 SCR 241 , the
Supreme Court has stated the principle It is well
settled that general words of a release do not mean
release of rights other than those then put up and
have to be limited to the circumstances which were in
the
contemplation
of
the
parties
when
it
was
executed.
Sridhara babu. N
doing
so,
the
principles
of
construction
of
synthesis,
embodying
provisions
which
dissection,
segregation
and
to
the
cardinal
canon
of
interpretation
Sridhara babu. N
Act,
which
reads
as
under:
31.
When
Sridhara babu. N
who
has
reasonable
apprehension
that
such
in
his
books
the
fact
of
its
Sridhara babu. N
to
encumbering
property.
Receiving
Sridhara babu. N
signature
of
the
testator
in
the
manner
It
will
all
depend
on
the
facts
and
Sridhara babu. N
the
signature
and
addition
of every person
the
signature
and
addition
of every person
Sridhara babu. N
Act,
contemplates
the
factum
of
the
Sridhara babu. N
ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT
R.V.E.
Venkatachala
Gounder
v.
Arulmigu
Sridhara babu. N
objection
does
not
prejudice
the
party
Sridhara babu. N
against
the
party
tendering
the
evidence,
the
Sridhara babu. N
Why
should
the
trial
prolong
like
that
would
help
acceleration
of
trial
Sridhara babu. N
ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT
In State of Bihar and Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh
& Ors., AIR 1983 SC 684, this Court considered
the issue in respect of admissibility of documents or
contents thereof and held as under: "Admissibility of a
document is one thing and its probative value quite
another - these two aspects cannot be combined. A
document may be admissible and yet may not carry
Sridhara babu. N
Court examined a
lead
not
only
to
improbabilities
and
ORAL
AGREEMENT
CONTRARY
TO
WRITTEN
Sridhara babu. N
without
any
consideration
on
an
Sridhara babu. N
immovable
property
for
the
purpose
of
Sridhara babu. N
to
execute
mortgage
deed
in
itself
intention to
What
would
be
necessary
in
these
Sridhara babu. N
DEEDS
V.E.R.M.A.R. Chettyar Firm v. Ma Joo Teen ((1933)
I.L.R. 11 Rang. 239, 253.). The main question decided
in that case was, what did the terms "documents of
title" and "title-deeds" denote? The Court held that
they denoted such a document or documents as show
a prima facie or apparent title in the depositor to the
property or to some
Justice,
who
spoke
for
the
Court,
after
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
and
on
oral,
documentary
or
Sridhara babu. N
Dutta
Seal
vs
Ramanlal
Phumra
And
Sridhara babu. N
Where,
however,
titles
are
handed
over
Dutta
Seal
vs
Ramanlal
Phumra
And
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
is
lost
or
not
forthcoming,
equitable
Sridhara babu. N
received by the
Sridhara babu. N
DOCUMENTS
OF
TITLE
NEED
TO
BE
DEPOSITED
A Full Bench of the Rangoon High Court considered
the question in K.L.C.T. Chidambaram Chettiyar v.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
who
circumstances
owned
in
the
my
land
...........
opinion,
the
In
these
documents
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
given
along
with
the
title
deeds.
Sridhara babu. N
document
both
form
integral
parts
of
the
instrument
creating
an
interest
in
Sridhara babu. N
in
the
immovable
property.
It
follows,
under
Section
17
of
the
Indian
Registration Act."
In V.G. Rao v. Andhra Bank , AIR 1971 SC 1613
Hegde, J., while dealing with the law relating to the
nature of a memorandum given along with the deposit
of title deeds or one filed thereafter, held as under :
"THEREFORE, the crucial question is : Did the parties
Sridhara babu. N
proper
construction
and
the
surrounding
intend
regarding
form
the
of
registration.
construction
circumstances
parties
to
reduce
their
bargain:
If
on
the
the
document
otherhand
and
the
its
the
requires
proper
surrounding
arises
by
implication
of
Sridhara babu. N
the
intention
that
those
documents
shall
Sridhara babu. N
the
decision
reported
in Veeramachineni
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
WHETHER
PROPERTY
SHOULD
HAVE
BEEN
VALID
MORTGAGE
REFERRED
TO
LARGER BENCH
Honourable Supreme Court Syndicate Bank v. Estate
Officer & amp; Manager, APIIC Ltd. and others, (2007)
8 Supreme Court Cases 361, at Page 364 wherein it is
among other things observed as follows: The requisites
of an equitable mortgage are : (i) a debt; (ii) a deposit of
title deeds; and (iii) an intention that the deeds shall be
security for the debt. The territorial restrictions
contained in Section 58(f) Transfer of Property Act also
do not stand as a bar in creating an equitable
mortgage. whereas a deposit of title deeds by itself
does not require a document in writing, but in the
event a mortgage is created thereby, it will require
registration. It is one thing to say that a person cannot
convey any title which he himself does not possess,
but it is another thing to say that no mortgage can be
created unless he obtains a title by reason of a
registered conveyance. Various High Courts have also
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
to
others
and,
therefore,
the
mortgage
institutions,
it
is
capable
of
realising
its
Sridhara babu. N
of
India
Ltd.
v.
Lekharam
Sonaram
and
to
reduce
the
contract
to
writing,
that
the
Registration
Act,
as
non-testamentary
Sridhara babu. N
not by
Sridhara babu. N
Chandrashekaraiah
of
Karnataka
High
Sridhara babu. N
and
when
that
document
has
been
by
the
2nd
defendant.
Further,
the
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
M.S.M.Kasiviswanathan
Chettiar
and
others
Sridhara babu. N
2002
Madras
378 (M.M.T.C.limited
vs.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
And
Concisely
vs
Unknown
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
court will lends its aid to a man who founds his cause
of action upon an immoral or illegal act.
(iii) Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio : No action can
arise from a bare agreement.
These three maxims would highlight and spotlight the
fact that out of illegal act no legal cause of action
arises for filing suits. If the agreements or the
documents turned out to be void ones, the party to it
cannot enforce them. While holding so, I also recollect
up and call up the following maxims in favour of the
bank.
1. Nemo allegans suam turpitudinem audiendus est
- No one testifying to his own way is to be heard as a
witness.
2. Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua
propria: No one can take advantage by his own wrong.
3. Nul prendra advantage de son tort demesne: No one
shall take advantage of his own wrong.
The gist and kernel of the above maxims are that the
person who committed fraud cannot capitalise his own
fraud.
15. No doubt on the plaintiffs' side, there are
jurisprudential points to the effect that out of a void
contract or illegal contract no legal cause of action
would arise, but on the other hand the jurisprudential
Sridhara babu. N
on
much
more
basic
ground.
Sridhara babu. N
..It is
Sridhara babu. N
from
banks
and
financial
institutions
Sridhara babu. N
2001
S.C.
1321 Instruments
admits,
such
instrument in evidence
upon
Sridhara babu. N
collected
from
the
party
for
taking
Sridhara babu. N
ADMISSIBILITY
OF
UNREGISTERED
PARTITION
DEED
Siromani v. Hemkumar, A.I.R.1968 S.C.1299: Of
course, the document is admissible to prove an
intention on the part of the coparceners to become
divided in status; in other words, to prove that the
parties ceased to be joint from the date of the
instrument . .
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
in
interest,
for
the
purpose
of
of
contradicting,
varying,
adding
to
or
Sridhara babu. N
of
contradicting,
varying,
adding
to
or
Central
Government
or
of
Government................................................
State
Provided
Sridhara babu. N
and
in
the
manner
provided
by
law.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
possession
if
not
actual
physical
Pleadings of the
Sridhara babu. N
title,
interest,
use,
inheritance,
property,
A document, must be
stipulation
with
regard
to
payment
of
Sridhara babu. N
of
transaction.
In
any
event,
the
said
vs Mohammed
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
The
Price
thus
constitutes
an
essential
Sridhara babu. N
the
evidence
on
record..
The
basic
Sridhara babu. N
clear
identification
of
any
immoveable
Sridhara babu. N
boundaries
are
disputed,
their
description
case
document
of
contradictions
about
area
and
in
statements
boundaries
of
the
Sridhara babu. N
of
surface
of
the
land
confers
Sridhara babu. N
clause
of
the
document
is
invalid
or
should
not
be
applied
while
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
construing
documents
usefulness
of
the
(Dead)
Bhagwanthbuva
) JT 362 =
Thru
(Dead)
Lrs.
Thru
&
Lrs
Anr.
vs
2013
(2
Sridhara babu. N
document
MUST
PRIMARILY
BE
GATHERED
are
not
clear,
the
surrounding
between
the
very
parties
to
the
written
Sridhara babu. N
document or a transaction in a
Sridhara babu. N
ILR
Sridhara babu. N
FAMILY
AND
DOCUMENTS
UNDER
EVIDENCE ACT
Section 92 of the Evidence Act states that when the
terms of any
as
between
the
parties
to
any
such
documents
relating
to
disposition
of
the
Sridhara babu. N
FAILURE TO
OBJECTION
TO
WAIVER
OF
THE
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
objection
does
not
prejudice
the
party
the
party
tendering
the
evidence,
the
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
is
admissible
executed
was
never
to
show
intended
to
that
document
operate
as
an
Sridhara babu. N
PRESUMPTION
OF
OLD
DOCUMENTS
UNDER
of
private
documents.
Presumption
of
flowing
from
Section
90.
There
is,
STATEMENT
WITHOUT
PROOF
OF
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
In
Sridhara babu. N
of
the
handwriting
and
execution
of
the
Sridhara babu. N
been
entered
into
with
open
eyes
and
Sridhara babu. N
to
determine
for
themselves
what
primary
done
to
the
interests
of
the
community
at
Sridhara babu. N
Court
in
Punjab
Urban
Planning
&
Sridhara babu. N
basis,
they
are
estopped
from
conflict
between
the
two,
the
description
by
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N