Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Appellant: in re reference under stamp act section 49 · Page 1 of about 4 results (0.056 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Aug 09 1892

In Re: Reference Under Stamp Act, Section 49

Court : Chennai

Appellant : In Re: Reference Under Stamp Act, Section 49

Decided on : Aug-09-1892

Subject : Property

Reported in : (1893)ILR16Mad419

1. The deed is not an instrument of gift but purports to transfer to Chidambaram Pillai the property of the executant's husband, subject to the payment of his debts. It also purports to reserve 1/4 cawni...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 28 1884

In Re: Reference Under Section 49 of the Stamp Act

Court : Chennai

Appellant : In Re: Reference Under Section 49 of the Stamp Act

Decided on : Jan-28-1884

Subject : PropertyCivil

Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad385

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., Kernan, Kindersley, Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the exhibit II, with its supplement exhibit III, is not an award nor a partition deed, but it is...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 31 1969

In Re: Reference Under Act No. 1 of 1879 (Indian Stamp Act), Section 4 ...

Court : Allahabad

Appellant : In Re: Reference Under Act No. 1 of 1879 (Indian Stamp Act), Section 49

Decided on : Dec-31-1969

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1895)ILR17All55

John Edge, Kt., C.J., Knox and Banerji, JJ.1. This is a reference by the Munsif of Saharanpur under Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1879. The question is whether a document produced before him...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Dec 31 1969

In Re: Reference Under Act No. I of 1879 (Indian Stamp Act), Section 4 ...

Court : Allahabad

Appellant : In Re: Reference Under Act No. I of 1879 (Indian Stamp Act), Section 49

Decided on : Dec-31-1969

Subject : Banking

Reported in : (1895)ILR17All211

ORDERJohn Edge, Kt., C.J. and Mahmood and Knox, JJ.1. The case reported in I.L.R. 10 Mad. 158, does not apply to the facts of this case. The document in this case is not in our opinion...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial