Appendix

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Procedure for sale is prescribed Section 128 read order 21 Rule 64 to Rule 106 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which are extracted here under:—

128. Matters for which rules may provide — (1) Such rules shall be not inconsistent with the provisions in the body of this Code, but, subject thereto, may provide for any matters relating to the procedure of Civil Court.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—

(a) the service of summonses, notices and other processes by post or in any other manner either generally or in any specified areas, and the proof of such service;;

(b) the maintenance and custody, while under attachment, of live-stock and other movable property, the fees payable for such maintenance and custody, the sale of such live-stock and property, and the proceeds of such sale;

(d) procedure in garnishee and charging orders either in addition to, or in substitution for, the attachment and sale of debts;

(e) procedure where the defendant claims to be entitled to contribution or indemnity over against any person whether a party to the suit or not;

(f) summary procedure—

(i) in suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debit or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest, arising—

on a contract express or implied; or

on an enactment where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty; or

on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debit or a liquidated demand only; or

on a trust; or

(ii) in suits for the recovery of immovable property, with or without a claim for rent or mesne profits, by a landlord against a tenant whose term has expired or has been duly determined by notice to quit, or has become liable to forfeiture for non-payment of rent, or against persons claiming under such tenant;

(g) procedure by way of originating summons;

(h) consolidation of suits, appeals and other proceedings;

(i) delegation to any Register, Prothonotary or Master or other official of the Court of any judicial, quasi-judicial and non-judicial duties; and

(j) all forms, registers, books, entries and accounts which may be necessary or desirable for the transaction of the business of Civil Court.

ORDER 21

64. Power to order property attached to be sold and proceeds to be paid to person entitled— Any Court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale, or such portion thereof as may see necessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold, and that the proceeds of such sale, or a sufficient portion thereof, shall be paid to the party entitled under the decree to receive the same.

65. Sales by whom conducted and how made— Save as otherwise prescribed, every sale in execution of a decree shall be conducted by an officer of the Court or by such other person as the Court may appoint in this behalf, and shall be made by public auction in manner prescribed.

66. Proclamation of sales by public auction— (l) Where any property is ordered to be sold by public auction in execution of a decree, the Court shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of such court.

(2) Such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree-holder and the judgement-debtor and shall state the time and place of sale, and specify as fairly and accurately as possible—

(a) the property to be sold or, where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree, such part;

(b) the revenue assessed upon the estate, where the property to be sold is an interest in an estate or in part of an estate paying revenue to the Government;

(d) the amount for recovery of which the sale is ordered; and

(e) every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property :

Provided that where notice of the date for settling the terms of the proclamation has been given to the judgement-debtor by means of an order under rule 54, it shall not be necessary to give notice under this rule to the judgement-debtor unless the Court otherwise directs:

Provided further that nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring the Court to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value Of the property, but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given, by either or both of the parties.]

(3) Every application for an order for sale under this rule shall be accompanied by a statement signed and verified in the manner herein before prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings and containing, so far as they are known to or can be ascertained by the person making the verification, the matters required by sub-rule (2) to be specified in the proclamation.

(4) For the purpose ascertaining the matters to be specified in the proclamation, the Court may summon any person whom it thinks necessary to summon and may examine him in respect to any such matters and require him to produce any document in his possession or power relating thereto.

67, Mode of making proclamation— (1)Every proclamation shall be made and published, as nearly as may be, in the manner prescribed by rule 54, sub-rule (2).

(2) Where the Court so directs, such proclamation shall also be published in the Official Gazette or in a local newspaper, or in both, and the costs of such publication shall be deemed to be costs of the sale.

(3) Where property is divided into lots for the purpose of being sold separately, it shall not be necessary to make a separate proclamation for each lot, unless proper notice of the sale cannot, in the opinion of the Court, otherwise be given.

68. Time of sale— Save in the case of property of the kind described in the proviso to rule 43, no sale here-under shall, without the consent in writing of the judgement-debtor, take place until after the expiration of at least 655 [fifteen days] in the case of immovable property, and of at least 656 [seven days] in the case of movable property, calculated from the date on which the copy of the proclamation has been affixed on the court-house of the Judge ordering the sale.

69. Adjournment or stoppage of sale— (1) The Court may, in its discretion, adjourn any sale hereunder to a specified day and hour, and the officer conducting any such sale may in his discretion adjourn the sale, re-cording his reasons for such adjournment:

Provided that, where the sale is made in, or within the precincts of, the court-house, no such adjournment shall be made without the leave of the Court.

(2) Where a sale is adjourned under sub-rule (1) for a longer period than 657 [thirty] days a fresh proclamation under rule 67 shall be made, unless the judgement-debtor consents to waive it.

(3) Every sale shall be stopped if, before the lot is knocked down, the debt and costs (including the costs of the sale) are tendered to tile officer conducting the sale, or proof is given to his satisfaction that the amount of such debt and costs has been paid into the Court which ordered the sale.

70. Saving of certain sales. Repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956 (66 of 1956), s. 14.

71. Defaulting purchaser answerable for loss on re-sale— Any deficiency of price which may happen on a re-sale by reason of the purchaser's default, and all expenses attending such re-sale, shall be certified to the Court 658 *** by the officer or other person holding the sale, and shall, at the instance of either the decree-holder or the judgement-debtor, be recoverable from the defaulting purchaser under the provisions relating to the execution of a decree for the payment of money.

72. Decree holder not to bid for or buy property without permission— (1) No holder of a decree in execution of which property is sold shall, without the express permission of the Court, bid for or purchase the property.

(2) Where decree-holder purchases, amount of decree may be taken as payment— Where a decree-holder purchases with such permission, the purchase-money and the amount due on the decree may, subject to the provisions of section 73, be set off against one another, and the Court executing the decree shall enter up satisfaction of the decree in whole or in part accordingly.

(3) Where a decree-holder purchases, by himself or through another person, without such permission, the Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the judgement-debtor or any other person whose interests are affected by the sale, by order set aside the sale; and the costs of such application and order, and any deficiency of price which may happen on the re-sale and all expenses attending it, shall be paid by the decree-holder.

72A. Mortgagee not to bid at sale without the leave of the Court— (l) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 72, a mortgagee of immovable property shall not bid for or purchase property sold in execution of a decree on the mortgage unless the Court grants him leave to bid for or purchase the property.

(2) If leave to bid is granted to such mortgagee, then the Court shall fix a reserve price as regards the mortgagee, and unless the Court otherwise directs, the reserve price shall be—

(a) not less than the amount then due for principal, interest and costs in respect of the mortgage if the property is sold in one lot; and

(b) in the case of any property sold in lots, not less than such sum as shall appear to the Court to be properly attributable to each lot in relation to the amount then due for principal, interest and costs on the mortgage.

(3) In other respects, the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of rule 72 shall apply in relation to purchase by the decree-holder under that rule.]

73. Restriction on bidding or purchase by offices— No officer or other person having any duty to perform in connection with any sale shall, either directly or indirectly, bid for, acquire or attempt to acquire any interest in the property sold.

Sale of movable property

74. Sale of agricultural produce— (1) Where the property to be sold is agricultural produce, the sale shall be held,—

(a) if such produce is a growing crop, on or near the land on which such crop has grown, or

(b) if such produce has been cut or gathered, at or near the threshing floor or place for treading out grain or the like or fodder-stack on or in which it is deposited :

Provided that the Court may direct the sale to be held at the nearest place of public resort, if it is of opinion that the produce is their by likely to sell to, greater advantage.

(2) Where, on the produce being put up for sale,—

(a) a fair price, in the estimation of the person holding the sale, is not offered for it, and

(b) the owner of produce or a person authorised to act in his behalf applies to have the sale postponed till next day if a market is held at the place of sale, the next market-day,

the sale shall be postponed accordingly and shall be then completed, whatever price may be offered for the produce.

75. Special provisions relating to growing crops— (1) Where the property to be sold is a growing crop and the crop from its nature admits of being stored but has not yet been stored, the day of the sale shall be so fixed as to admit of its being made ready for storing before the arrival of such day, and the sale shall not be held until the crop has been cut or gathered and is ready for storing.

(2) Where the crop from its nature does not admit of being stored, it may be sold before it is cut and gathered and the purchaser shall be entitled to enter on the land, and to do all that is necessary for the purpose of tending and cutting or gathering it.

76. Negotiable instruments and shares in corporations— Where the property to be sold is a negotiable instrument or a share in a corporation, the Court may, instead of directing the sale to be made by public auction, authorise the sale of such instrument or share through a broker.

77. Sale by public auction— (1) Where movable property is sold by public auction the price of each lot shall be paid at the time of sale or as soon after as the officer or other person holding the sale directs, and in default of payment the property shall forthwith be re-sold.

(2) On payment of the purchase-money, the officer or other person holding the sale shall grant a receipt for the same, and the sale shall become absolute.

(3) Where the movable property to be sold is a share in goods belonging to the judgement-debtor and a co-owner, and two or more persons, of whom one is such co-owner, respectively bid the same sum for such property or for any lot, the bidding shall be deemed to be the bidding of the co-owner.

78. Irregularity not to vitiate sale, but any person injured may sue— No irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale of movable property shall vitiate the sale; but any person sustaining any injury by reason of such irregularity at the hand of any other person may institute a suit against him for compensation or (if such other person is the purchaser) for the recovery of the specific property and for compensation in default of ouch recovery.

79. Delivery of movable property, debts and shares— (1) Where the property sold is movable property of which seizure has been made, it shall be delivered to the purchaser.

(2) Where the property sold is movable property in the possession of some person other than the judgement-debtor, the delivery thereof the purchaser shall be made by giving notice to the person in possession prohibiting him from delivering possession of the property to any person except the purchaser.

(3) Where the property sold is a debt not secured by a negotiable instrument, or is a share in a corporation, the delivery thereof shall be made by a written order of the Court prohibiting the creditor from receiving the debt or any interest thereon, and the debtor from making payment thereof to any person except the purchaser, of prohibiting the person in whose name the share may be standing from making any transfer of the share to any person except the purchaser, or receiving payment of any dividend or interest thereon, and the manager, secretary or other proper officer of the corporation from permitting any such transfer or making any such payment to any person except the purchaser.

80. Transfer of negotiable instruments and shares— (1) Where the execution of a document or the endorsement of the party in whose name a negotiable instrument or a share in a corporation is standing is required to transfer such negotiable instrument or share, the Judge or such officer as he may appoint in this behalf may execute such document or make such endorsement as may be necessary, and such execution pr endorsement shall have the same effect as an execution or endorsement by the party.

(2) Such execution or endorsement may be in the following form, namely :—

A. B. by C. D. Judge of the Court of (or as the case may be), in a suit by E. F. against A. B.

(3) Until the transfer of such negotiable instrument or share, the Court may, by order, appoint some person to receive any interest or dividend due thereon and to sign a receipt for the same; and any receipt so signed shall be as valid and effectual for all purposes as if the same had been signed by the party himself.

81. Vesting order in case of other property— In the case of any movable property not herein before provided for, the Court may make an order vesting such property in the purchaser or as he may direct; and such property shall vest accordingly.

Sale of immovable property

82. What Courts may order sales— Sales of immovable property in execution of decrees may be ordered by any Court other than a Court of small Causes.

83. Postponement of sale to enable judgement-debtor to raise amount of decree— (1) Where an order for the sale of immovable property has been made, if the judgement-debtor can satisfy the Court that there is reason to believe that the amount of the decree may be raised by the mortgage or lease or private sale of such property, or some part thereof, or of any other immovable property of the judgement-debtor, the Court may, on his application, postpone the sale of the property comprised in the order for sale on such terms and for such period as it thinks proper, to enable him to raise the amount.

(2) In such case the Court shah grant a certificate to the judgement-debtor authorising him within a period to be mentioned therein, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 64, to make the proposed mortgage, lease or sale:

Provided that all moneys payable under such mortgage, lease or sale shall be paid, not to the judgement-debtor, but, save in so far as a decree-holder is entitled to set-off such money under the provisions of rule 72, into Court:

Provided also that not mortgage, lease or sale under this rule shall become absolute until it has been confirmed by the Court.

(3) Nothing in this rule shah be deemed to apply to a sale of property directed to be sold in execution of a decree for sale in enforcement of a mortgage of, or charge on, such property.

84, Deposit by purchaser and re-sale on default— (1) On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of twenty-five per cent. on the amount of his purchase-money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be re-sold.

(2) Where the decree-holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set-off the purchase-money under rule 72 the Court may dispense with the requirements of this rule.

85. Time for payment in full of purchase money— The full amount of purchase-money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property:

Provided that, in calculating the amount to be so paid into Court, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under rule 72.

86. Procedure in default of payment— In default of payment within the period mentioned in the last preceding rule, the deposit may, if the Court thinks fit, after defraying the expenses of the sale, be forfeited to the Government, and the property shall be re-sold, and defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may subsequently be sold.

87. Notification on re-sale— Every re-sale of immovable property, in default of payment of the purchase money within the period allowed for such payment, shall be made after the issue of fresh proclamation in the manner and for the period herein before prescribed for the sale.

88. Bid of co-sharer to have preference— Where the property sold is a share of undivided immovable property and two or more persons, of whom one is a co-sharer, respectively bid the same sum for such property or for any lot, the bid deemed to be the bid of the co-sharer.

89. Application to set aside sale on deposit— (1) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person, may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court,—

(a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase-money, and

(b) for payment, to the decree-holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been received by the decree-holder.

(2) Where a person applies under rule 90 to set aside the sale of his immovable property, he shall not, unless he withdraws his application, be entitled to make or prosecute an application under this rule.

(3) Nothing in this rule shall relieve the judgement-debtor from any liability he may be under in respect of costs and interest not covered by the proclamation of sale.

90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularly or fraud— (1) Where any immovable property has been sold on execution of a decree, the decree-holder, or the purchase, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it.

(2) No sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud.

(3) No application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up.

Explanation.— The mere absence of, or defect in, attachment of the property sold not, by itself, be a ground for setting aside a sale under this rule.]

91. Application by purchaser to set aside sale on ground of judgement-debtor having no saleable interest.— The purchaser at any such sale in execution of a decree may apply to the Court to set aside the sale, on the ground that the judgement-debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold.

92. Sale when to become absolute or be set aside.— (1) Where no application is made under rule 89, rule 90 or rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale and there upon the shall become absolute:

Provided that, where any property is sold in execution of a decree pending the final disposal of any claim to, or any objection to the attachment of, such property, the Court shall not confirm such sale until the final disposal of such claim or objection.

(2) Where such application is made and allowed, and where, in the case of an application under rule 89,the deposit required by that rule is made within thirty days from the date of sale, or in cases where the amount deposited under rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor and such deficiency has been made good within such time as may be fixed by the Court, the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale]:

Provided that no order shah be made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby.

(3) No suit to set aside an order made under this rule shall be brought by any person against whom such order is made.

(4) Where a third party challenges the judgement-debtor's title by filling a suit against the auction-purchaser, the decree-holder and the judgement-debtor shall be necessary parties to the suit.

(5) If the suit referred to in sub-rule (4) is decreed, the Court shall direct the decree-holder to refund the money to the auction-purchaser, and where such an order is passed the execution proceeding in which the sale had been held shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be revived at the stage at which the sale was ordered.

93. Return of purchase-money in certain cases.— Where a sale of immovable property is set aside under rule 92, the purchaser shall be entitled to an order for repayment of his purchase-money, with or without interest as the Court may direct; against any person to whom it has been paid.

94. Certificate to purchaser.— Where a sale of immovable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser. Such certificate shall bear date the day on which the sale became absolute.

95. Delivery of property in occupancy of judgement-debtor.— Where the immovable property sold is in the occupancy of the judgement-debtor or of some person on his behalf or of some person claiming under a title created by the judgement-debtor subsequently to the attachment of such property and a certificate in respect thereof has been granted under rule 94, the Court shall, on the application of the purchaser, order to delivery to be made by putting such purchaser or any person whom he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf in possession of the property, and, if need be, by removing any person who refuses to vacate the same.

96. Delivery of property occupancy of tenant.— Where the property sold is in the occupancy of a tenant or other person entitled to occupy the same and a certificate in respect thereof has been granted under rule 94, the Court shall, on the application of the purchaser, order delivery to be made by affixing a copy of the certificate of sale in some conspicuous place on the property, and proclaiming to the occupant by beat of drum or other customary mode, at some convenient place, that the interest of the judgement-debtor has been transferred to the purchaser.

Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holder or purchaser

97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.— (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction.

(2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.

98. Orders after adjudication.— (1) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2),—

(a) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the application; or

(b) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit.

(2) Where, upon such determination, the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf, or by any transferee, where such transfer was made during the pendency of the suit or execution proceeding, it shall direct that the applicant he put into possession of the property, and where the applicant is still resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the Court may also, at the instance of the applicant, order the judgment-debtor, or any person acting at his instigation or on his behalf, to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days.

99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser.— (1) Where any person other than the judgement-debtor is dispossessed of immovable by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.

(2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.

100. Order to be passed upon application complaining of dispossession.— Upon the determination of the questions referred to in rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination,—

(a) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the application; or

(b) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit.

101. Question to be determined.— All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions.

102. Rules not applicable to transferee pendent lite— Nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgement-debtor has transferred property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person.

Explanation.— In this rule, "transfer" includes a transfer by operation of law.

103. Orders to be treated as decrees.— Where any application has been adjudicated upon under rule 98 or rule 100, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree.

104. Order under rule 101 or rule 103 to be subject to the result or pending suit...— Every order made under rule 101 or rule 103 shall be object to the result of any suit that may be pending on the date of commencement of the proceeding in which such order is made, if in such-suit the party against whom the order under rule 101or rule 103 is made has sought to establish a right which he claims to the present possession of the property.

(2) No order shall be made on an application under sub-rule (1) unless notice of the application has been served on the other party.

(3) An application under sub-rule (1) shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order, or where, in the case of an ex party order, the notice was not duly served, within thirty days from the date when applicant had knowledge of the order

105. Hearing of application.— (1) The Court, before which an application under any of the foregoing rules of this Order is pending, may fix a day for the hearing of the application.

(2) Where on the day fixed or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned the applicant does not appear when the case is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the application be dismissed.

(3) Where the applicant appears and the opposite party to whom the notice has been issued by the Court does not appear, the Court hear the application ex parte and pass such order as it thinks fit.

Explanation.— An application referred to in sub-rule (1) includes a claim or objection made under rule 58.

106. Setting aside orders passed ex party, etc.— (1) The applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) rule 105 or the opposite party against when an order is passed ex party under sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-rule (1) a rule 23, may apply to the Court to set aside the order, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the application was called on for hearing, the Court shall set aside the order or such terms as to costs, or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for the further hearing of the application.

(2) No order shall be made on an application under sub-rule (1) unless notice of the application has been served on the other party.

~.~.~.~

Black's Law Dictionary, (Seventh Edition) 1999.

Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kisva Nandan Sahai, AIR 1937 PC 233

Sarangapani v. K.V. Parthiban, AIR 1992 Mad 203

Dipo v. Wassan Singh, AIR 1983 SC 846; 1983 (3) SCR 20

ibid

Bara Singh v. Kashmira Singh, 1990 Supp (1) SCR 417: 1990 (4) SCC 711: 1990 (2) Scale 684

Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kisva Nandan Sahai, AIR 1937 PC 233

Faqir Chand v. Sardarni Harnam Kaur, AIR 1967 SC 727: 1963 All LJ 343: 1963 All WR 292: 1966 (68) Pun LR (D) 343: 1967(1) SCR 68

Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, AIR 1953 SC 487: 1953 SCJ 700: 1954 SCR 177

Prasad v. Govindaswami Mudaliar, AIR 1982 SC 84: 1982(1) SCC 185: 1982(2) SCR 109: 1981(3) Scale 1867

Gurbachan Singh v. Puran Singh, AIR 1961 SC 1263: 1961(1) Ker LR 518: 63 Pun LR 663: 1962(1) SCR 176

C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1953 SC 495: 1953 SCJ 707: 1954 SCR 243

Sourindra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Cuttack, AIR 1991 Ori 19 (DB) also to same effect is C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar, ibid

Maktul v. Manbhari, AIR 1958 SC 918: 1958 SCJ 1268: 1959 SCR 1099

Vijaya College Trust v. The Kumta Co-operative Arecanut Sales Society Limited, AIR 1995 Kant 35 (DB)

Om Prakash v. Sarvjit Singh, 1994 (2) Civil Court Rulings 715 (HP)

S.A. Quddus v. S. Veerappa, AIR 1994 Kant 20

Prasad v. Govindaswami Mudaliar, AIR 1982 SC 84: 1982(1) SCC 185: 1982(2) SCR 109: 1981(3) Scale 1867; See also Biranchi Narayan Hadu v. Krushnapriya Debi, AIR 1991 Ori 55

Nanomi Babusin v. Modhun Mohun, (1886) ILR 13 Cal 21

In re: the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Women's Rights to Property (Amendment) Act, 1938, 1941(3) Federal Court Reports 12 at page 32

S.M. Jakati v. S.M. Borkar, AIR 1959 SC 282: 61 Bom LR 688: 1959 Cal LJ 81: 1959 SCR 1384

V.V. Giri v. D. Suri Dora, AIR 1959 SC 1318: 1960 SCJ 1149: 1960 (1) SCR 426

Kailash Sankar v. Maya Devi, AIR 1984 SC 600

Guntur Medical College v. Y. Mohan Rao, AIR 1976 SC 1904

Black's Law Dictionary, (Seventh Edition) 1999.

Robert E. Megarry & H.W.R. Wade, The law of Real Property 456-57 (5th ed. 1984)

Kalooram Govindram v. CIT, 1965(57) ITR 335 (SC)

State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram, AIR 1969 SC 1330: 1969(3) SCR 681: 1969(2) SCC 33

Hukamchand Gulabchand Jain v. Fulchand Lakhmichand Jain, AIR 1965 SC 1692: 1965 Mah LJ 609: 1965 MPLJ 673: 1965 (3) SCR 91

Sushma v. Satish Chander, AIR 1984 Del 1: 1983 (2) DMC 255: 1983 (5) DRJ 305: 1983 RLR 724

Black's Law Dictionary, (Seventh Edition) 1999.

Krishna Beharilal v. Gulabchand, AIR 1971 SC 1041: 1971 (1) SCC 837: 1971 Supp. SCR 27

C. Krishna Prasad v. C.I.T. Bangalore, AIR 1975 SC 498: 1975(1) All LR 17: 1975(1) SCC 160: 1975(2) SCR 709

Krishna Beharilal v. Gulabchand, AIR 1971 SC 1041: 1971 (1) SCC 837: 1971 Supp. SCR 27

Kisto Chandra Mandal v. Anila Bala Dasi, AIR 1968 Pat 487

Atava Akkulamma v. Gajjela Papi Reddy, AIR 1995 AP 166

Munnodiyil Peravakutty v. Kuniyedath Chalil Velayudhan, AIR 1992 Ker 290 (DB)

Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807: 1976(3) SCC 119: 1976(3) SCR 202

See an unproven oral settlement in Roop Chand v. Indradevi, AIR 1997 MP 200

Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807: 1976(3) SCC 119: 1976(3) SCR 202

Jugal Kishore Singh v. Gobind Singh, AIR 1992 Pat 128

Mythili Nalini v. Kowmari, AIR 1991 Ker 266

Jugal Kishore Singh v. Gobind Singh, AIR 1992 Pat 128

Sahu Madho Das v. Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481: 1955(2) Mad LJ (SC) 1: 1955 SCJ 417: 1955(2) SCR 22

P.G. Hariharan v. Padaril, AIR 1994 Ker 36

Sahu Madho Das v. Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481: 1955(2) Mad LJ (SC) 1: 1955 SCJ 417: 1955(2) SCR 22

Atava Akkulamma v. Gajjela Papi Reddy, AIR 1995 AP 166

K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, 1998(3) SCC 573: AIR 1998 SC 1297

Kisto Chandra Mandal v. Anila Bala Dasi, AIR 1968 Pat 487

Lakshmi Ammal v. Chakravahthi 1999 (1) SCC 235

Potti Lakshmi Perumallu v. Potti Krishnavenamma, AIR 1965 SC 825: 1965(2) MadLJ (Cri) 105: 1965(1) SCR 26; See also R. Lakshmi v. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd. , AIR 1995 Mad 225

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Mysore v. Vijayaba, Dowger Maharani Saheb, Bhavnagar, AIR 1979 SC 982: 1979(2) SCC 213: 1979(3) SCR 545: 1979 UPTC 1101

Sahu Madho Das v. Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481: 1955(2) Mad LJ (SC) 1: 1955 SCJ 417: 1955(2) SCR 22

CWT v. R. Sridharan, 1976 HLR 600 (SC)

Perumal Nadar v. Ponnuswami Nadar, AIR 1971 SC 2352: 1970(2) Andh WR (SC) 121: 1970(1) SCC 605: 1971(1) SCR 49: 1970(2) Mad LJ (SC) 121

Punjab Rao v. Dr. D.P. Meshram, AIR 1965 SC 1179: 1965 MPLJ 257: 1965(1) SCR 849

S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam, AIR 1969 SC 101: 1969 (1) SCJ 738: 1969(1) SCR 254

Gopal Singh Bhumij v. Giribala Bhumij, AIR 1991 Pat 138

K. Devabalan v. M. Vijayakumari, AIR 1991 Ker 175

Madan Mohan Behl v. Vena Rani, 1981 (1) DMC 249: 1984 (6) DRJ 30: 1984 RLR 57

Ram Dulari v. CIT, 1984 (150) ITR 569 (Del)

Black's Law Dictionary, (Seventh Edition) 1999.

ITAT v. Estate of Late Nulli Lakshminarayana, 1979 (116) ITR 739 (AP)

Shakuntalabai v. L.V. Kulkarni, AIR 1989 SC 1359: 1989(2) SCC 526: 1989(2) SCR 70: 1989(1) Scale 737: 1989(1) JT 607: 1989(1) DMC 536

ibid

Black's Law Dictionary, (Seventh Edition) 1999.

T.S. Swaminatha Odayar v. Official Receiver of West Tanjore, AIR 1957 SC 577: 1957(2) And WR (SC) 53: 1957(2) Mad LJ (SC) 53: 1957 SCR 775

Black's Law Dictionary, (Seventh Edition) 1999.

CIT v. Seth Gopaldas (HUF), 1979 (116) ITR 577(MP)

V.N. Sarin v. Ajit Kumar Poplai, AIR 1966 SC 432: 1966(68) Pun LR 164: 1966(1) SCR 349

Charan Das v. CIT, AIR 1955 Bom 343

Ammathayee alias Perumalakkal, AIR 1967 SC 569: 1967 All LJ 354: 1967 BLJR 356: 1967(1) SCR 353

P. S. Gandhi v. CWT (1983) 141 ITR 105 (All)

CWT vs Jugal Kishore Bhagat (1992) 197 ITR 250 (Cal)

Vaijanath v. Guramma, 1999 (1) SCC 292: 1998(8) Scale 249

Shri Shri Tarakeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Bar Dass Dey and Co., AIR 1979 SC 1669: 1979(3) SCC 106: 1979(3) SCR 18

Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari, AIR 1976 SC 1813: 1976(3) SCC 512: 1976(3) SCR 661

Mosammat Bibi Sayeeda v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 1936: 1996 (9) SCC 516: 1996(4) Scale 232: 1996(4) JT 637: 1996(2) Pat. LJR 72

Shri Shri Tarakeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Bar Dass Dey and Co., AIR 1979 SC 1669: 1979(3) SCC 106: 1979(3) SCR 18

Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari, AIR 1976 SC 1813: 1976(3) SCC 512: 1976(3) SCR 661

CWT v. K. Ramachandra Chettiar (1983) 141 ITR 771 (Mad)

Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey, AIR 1962 SC 83: 1962 (1) An WR (SC) 258: 1962 BLJR 153: 1962(2) SCR 558

Atava Akkulamma v. Gajjela Papi Reddy, AIR 1995 AP 166; Gogula Gurmurthy v. Kurimeti Ayyappa, AIR 1974 SC 1702: 1974 SCD 566: 1974(3) SCR 595: 1975(4) SCC 458

Ananda Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 17: 22 Cut LT 101: 1956 Mad LJ (SC) 69: 1955(2) SCR 919

Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2149: 1977(4) SCC 145

CIT v. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. (1987) 164 ITR 18 (All)

Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300: 1966 (2) Andh WR (SC): 1966(3) SCR 400

Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300: 1966 (2) Andh WR: 1966(3) SCR 400

Lakshmikutty v. Mohandas, AIR 1990 Ker 78

Black's Law Dictionary, (Seventh Edition) 1999.

Freedom of religion

Ramchandra Shukla v. Shree Mahadeoji, AIR 1970 SC 458: 1970 (2) SCA 425: 1970(2) SCR 809: 1969 (3) SCC 700

Kamaraju Venkata Krishna Rao v. Sub-Collector, Ongole, AIR 1969 SC 563: 1969 (1) An.WR 83 (SC): 1969 (1) MLJ 83 (SC): 1969(1) SCR 624

Ramchandra Shukla v. Shree Mahadeoji, AIR 1970 SC 458: 1970 (2) SCA 425: 1970(2) SCR 809: 1969 (3) SCC 700

Chockalinga Sethurayar v. Arumanayakam, AIR 1969 SC 569: 1969 (2) Mad LJ 25 (SC): 1969(1) SCR 874

CIT v. V. Krishnamurthy, 1985(152) ITR669 (Mad)

Black's Law Dictionary, (Seventh Edition) 1999.

Levy of Estate Duty; In re:, 1944 (6) Federal Court Reports 317

Atava Akkulamma v. Gajjela Papi Reddy, AIR 1995 AP 166

in Janaki Ammal v. Narayana Samy, 1916 (43) IA 207

Atava Akkulamma v. Gajjela Papi Reddy, AIR 1995 AP 166

V. Venugopala Ravi Varma Rajah v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 1094: 1969 (2) SCJ 721: 1969(3) SCR 827: 1969(1) SCC 681

CIT v. Mukand Sukmal Jain, 1993 (200) ITR 528 (Gau)

N.V. Narendranath v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh, 1969(3) SCR 882: AIR 1970 SC 14: 1969(1) SCC 748: 1969 (2) Andh WR 99(SC): 1969 (2) MLJ 99 (SC)

Kalooram Govindram v. CIT, 1965(57) ITR 335 (SC)

S. Pritpal Singh v. Kuldeep Kaur, 1996 (2) AD 439 (Del): 1996 (61) DLT 812

Surjit Lal Chhabda v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, AIR 1976 SC 109: 1976(3) SCC 142: 1976(2) SCR 164: 1976 Hindu LR 144

Chiranji Lal v. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1991 Del 325: 1991 (3) DL 350

Amarendra Mansingh v. Sanatan Singh, AIR 1933 PC 155

Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai, AIR 1983 SC 114: 1983(1) SCC 35: 1983(1) SCR 851: 1982(2) Scale 1083: 1983 MPLJ 313: 1983 Mah.L.J. 402

Amarendra Mansingh v. Sanatan Singh, AIR 1933 PC 155

Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai, AIR 1983 SC 114: 1983(1) SCC 35: 1983(1) SCR 851: 1982(2) Scale 1083: 1983 MPLJ 313: 1983 Mah.L.J. 402

L. Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi, 1971(1) SCR 101: AIR 1970 SC 1286: 1970 (1) SCC 677

Urmila Dei v. Hemanta Kumar Mohanta alias Hemanta Mohanta, AIR 1993 Ori 213 (DB)

Vandavasi Karthikeya alias Krishna Murthy v. S. Kamalamma, AIR 1994 AP 102 (DB)

Lakshman Singh Kothari v. Smt. Rup Kanwar, AIR 1961 SC 1378: 1961 (2) Ker LR 156: 1962(1) SCR 477

Chandrani Bai v. Pradeep Kumar, AIR 1991 MP 286

Sanagavarapu Venkata Subbaiah Sarma v. Karuthota Galib Saheb, 1997 (5) Civil Court Rulings 805 (AP)

Raghunath Behera v. Balaram Behera, AIR 1996 Ori 38

Dhanno wd/o Balbir Singh v. Tuhi Ram, AIR 1996 P&H 203

Pathivada Ramaswami v. Korada Surya Prakasa Rao, AIR 1993 AP 336

Karam Chand v. Baljit, AIR 1990 P&H 220

Lalman v. Director of Consolidation, 1998(8) SCC 693

V.T.S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar v. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar, AIR 1963 SC 185: 1963(2) SCR 440.

Tahsil Naidu v. Kulla Naidu, AIR 1970 SC 1673: 1970 (2) SCJ 744: 1969(3) SCC 658: 1970(2) SCR 499

V.T.S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar v. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar, AIR 1963 SC 185: 1963(2) SCR 440.

Goswami Shree Vallabhalalji v. Goswamini Shree Mahalaxmi Bahuji Maharaj, AIR 1962 SC 356: 64 Bom LR 433: 1962(3) SCR 641

Tahsil Naidu v. Kulla Naidu, AIR 1970 SC 1673: 1970 (2) SCJ 744: 1969(3) SCC 658: 1970(2) SCR 499

V.T.S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar v. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar, AIR 1963 SC 185: 1963(2) SCR 440.

G. Appaswami Chettiar v. R. Sarangapani Chettiar, AIR 1978 SC 1051: 1978(3) SCC 55: 1978(3) SCR 520

R.B.S.S. Munnalal v. S.S. Rajkumar, 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 418: AIR 1962 SC 1493: 1962 Nag LJ 521

Gurunath v. Kamalabai, AIR 1955 SC 206: 1955 All LJ 461: 57 Bom LR 694: 1955(1) SCR 1135

As laid down in Gurunath v. Kamalabai, 1955(1) SCR 1135: AIR 1955 SC 206: 1955 All LJ 461: 57 Bom LR 694

Ashabai Kate v. Vithal Bhika Nade, AIR 1990 SC 670: 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 450: 1989 Supp. (1) SCR 464: 1989(4) J.T. 163: 1989 Mat. LR 449

Goswami Shree Vallabhalalji v. Goswamini Shree Mahalaxmi Bahuji Maharaj, AIR 1962 SC 356: 64 BOMLR 433: 1962(3) SCR 641

Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh, AIR 1975 SC 733: 1975(2) SCR 932: 1975(1) SCC 212

Shakuntalabai v. L.V. Kulkarni, AIR 1989 SC 1359: 1989(2) SCC 526: 1989(2) SCR 70: 1989(1) Scale 737: 1989(1) JT 607: 1989(1) DMC 536

Mookka Kone v. Ammakutti Ammal, AIR 1928 Mad 299 (FB)

Hem Singh v. Harnam Singh, AIR 1954 SC 581: 1954 SCJ 566: 1955(1) SCR 44

Kehar Singh v. Dewan Singh, AIR 1966 SC 1555: 1966(2) SCJ 363: 1966(3) SCR 393

Krushna Kahali v. Narana Kahali, AIR 1991 Ori 134

Dinaji v. Daddi, 1989 Supp (2) SCR 145: 1990 (1) SCC 1: AIR 1990 SC 1153: 1990 (2) DMC 296

Canara Bank Relief & Welfare Society; In re:, AIR 1991 Kant 6 (DB)

Abhiraj Kuer v. Debendra Singh, AIR 1962 SC 351: 64 BomLR 433: 1962(3) SCR 627.

Lalitha Ubhayakar v. Union of India, AIR 1991 Kant 186

in Anirudh Jagdeorao v. Babarao Irbaji, AIR 1983 Bombay 391

Kondiba Rama Papal @ Shirke, I (1991) DMC 388 SC.

Amarendra Mansingh v. Sanatan Singh, AIR 1933 PC 155

K. Babu Rao v. Dutta Rao, AIR 1992 Kant 290

Hari Krishan Dass v. Jai Krishan Dass, 1996 (3) AD 920 (Del): 1996 (38) DRJ 597

A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136: 1964(2) SCR 933

Gopal Singh Bhumij v. Giribala Bhumij, AIR 1991 Pat 138

Vimla Bai v. Hiralal Gupta, 1989 Supp (2) SCR 759: 1990 (2) SCC 22: 1990 (1) HLR 306

N.V. Narendranath v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh, 1969(3) SCR 882: AIR 1970 SC 14: 1969(1) SCC 748: 1969 (2) Andh WR (SC) 99: 1969 (2) MLJ (SC) 99

Kalooram Govindram v. CIT, 1965(57) ITR 335 (SC)

Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma, AIR 1987 SC 1775: 1987(3) SCC 294: 1987(3) SCR 236: 1987(1) Scale 1000: 1987(2) J.T. 440: 1987 BBCJ (SC) 155

Parbhu Lal v. Bhagwan, AIR 1927 Bom 412

Haridas v. Devkuvarbai, AIR 1926 Bom 408 (DB)

Lachmi Narain v. Musaddi Lal, AIR 1942 Oudh 155

Ratneshwari Nandan Singh v. Bhogwati Saran Singh, AIR 1950 FC 142

Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma, AIR 1987 SC 1775: 1987(3) SCC 294: 1987(3) SCR 236: 1987(1) Scale 1000: 1987(2) J.T. 440: 1987 BBCJ (SC) 155

Radhey Mohan v. Registrar, Cooperative Guoup Housing Society Ltd. , 1996 (64) DLT 683: 1996 (39) DRJ 603 (DB)

Pamela Kumar v. Arun Mohan, 1997(68) DLT 359 [DB]: 1997(5) AD(Delhi) 560: 1997(3) CLT 473

Kota Varaprasada Rao v. Kota China Venkaiah, AIR 1992 AP 1 (DB)

Ammathayee alias Perumalakkal, AIR 1967 SC 569: 1967 All LJ 354: 1967 BLJR 356: 1967(1) SCR 353

T. A. Lakshmi Narasamba v. T. Sundaramma, AIR 1981 AP 88 (FB)

Raj Kishore Mishra v. Meena Mishra, AIR 1995 All 70 (DB)

State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh, AIR 1985 SC 716: 1985(2) SCC 321: 1985(3) SCR 358: 1985(1) Scale 601: 1985(87) Bom LR 191

Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, 1987 (1) SCR 516 (DB)

Narayanan v. Pushparajini, AIR 1991 Ker 10

Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Muthuvenkatarama Iyengar 1998(5) SCC 368: 1998 SC 1692

Madan Lal v. Gopi, AIR 1980 SC 1754: 1980(4) SCC 255: 1981(1) SCR 594

Nagendra Prasad v. Kempananjamma, AIR 1968 SC 209: 1968 (1) SCR 124

Santanu Kumar Das v. Bairagi Charan Das, AIR 1995 Ori 300

Kanji S/o Ganesh v. Parmanand, AIR 1992 MP 208

R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekaran, AIR 1990 Mad 353 (DB)

G. Narayanappa v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 Supp(1) SCR 514: AIR 1992 SC 135: 1992 (1) SCC 197

R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekaran, AIR 1990 Mad 353 (DB)

Gur Narain Das v. Gur Tahal Das, AIR 1952 SC 225: 1952 SCJ 305: 1952 SCR 869; See also Raju v. Arunagiri, AIR 1933 Mad 397 (DB)

Perumal Gounder v. Pachayappan, AIR 1990 Mad 110

Singhai Ajit Kumar v. Ujayar Singh, AIR 1961 SC 1334: 1961 Andh LT 788: 1961(2) Ker LR 36: 1961(2) Mad LJ (SC) 193: 1962(1) SCR 347

in Shantaram v. Dagubai, AIR 1987 Bom 182

Handa Das v. Muralidhar Pati, AIR 1990 Ori 226

Union of India v. Shree Ram Bohra, AIR 1965 SC 1531: 1965 BLJR 589: 1965(2) SCR 830

Handa Das v. Muralidhar Pati, AIR 1990 Ori 226

Arvind & Abasaheb Ganesh Kulkarni v. Anna & Dhanpal Parisa Chougule, AIR 1980 SC 645: 1980(2) SCC 387: 1980(2) SCR 816: 1980(3) Mah LR 188

Nepur Kuer v. Sheochand Sahu, AIR 1961 Pat 57

P. Muthayya v. Chellappan Pillai, 1994 Supp (1) SCR 120: 1994 Supp (2) SCC 332

Dwarampudi Nagaratnamba v. Kunuku Ramayya, AIR 1968 SC 253: 1967 (2) Andh LT 420: 1968 (1) Andh WR (SC) 110: 1968 (1) Mad LJ (SC) 110: 1968(1) SCR 43

Kalamma v. Veeramma, AIR 1992 Kant 362 (DB)

M.C. Thimmaraju v. Puttakenchamma, AIR 1990 Kant 317 (DB)

R. Durairaj v. Seethalakshmiammal, AIR 1992 Mad 242

V. Venugopala Ravi Varma Rajah v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 1094: 1969 (2) SCJ 721: 1969(3) SCR 827: 1969(1) SCC 681

Achuthan Nair, v. Chinnammu Amma, AIR 1966 SC 411: 1966(1) Andh WR (SC) 85: 1966(1) Mad LJ (SC) 85: 1966(1) SCR 454

Manik Chand v. Ramchandra, AIR 1981 SC 519: 1980(4) SCC 22: 1980(3) SCR 1104: 1981 Mah LJ 196: 1981 Jab LJ 228

Dhanasekaran v. Manoranjithammal, AIR 1992 Mad 214 (DB)

Essakkyal Nadar Michayel Nadar v. Sreedharan Babu, AIR 1992 Ker 200

Subbalakshmi v. Sengolatha Koundar, (unreported decision dated 13.2.1973 in C.R.P. No.831 of 1969) (DB) (Madras)

Ayodhya Sah v. Joint Director of Consolidation, AIR 1992 Pat 97

Handa Das v. Muralidhar Pati, AIR 1990 Ori 226

Gurpreet Singh v. Chatterbhuj Goel, AIR 1992 P&H 95

Amrik Singh v. Karnail Singh, AIR 1974 P&H 315 (FB)

Kunhiraman v. Vanaja, 1997 (5) Civil Court Rulings 666 (Ker) (DB)

Santhosh Kumar v. Varghese, 1987 (2) KLT 27

Periyanayagam v. Rajendran, 1988 (1) MLJ 380

Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya (Vice-Chancellor), Varanasi v. Brahm, Gopta AIR 1993 All 233

Vijayalakshmi v. Inspector of Police, Karur Police Station, Karur, AIR 1991 Mad 243 (DB)

Githa Hariharan (Ms.) v. Reserve Bank of India, 1999 (2) SCC 228: 1999(1) Scale 490 : 1999(95) Comp Case 913

Sunanda Suri v. Kamlesh Suri, 1998 (5) AD (Del) 383: 1998 (46) DRJ 588

Shantaram v. Dhagubai, AIR 1987 Bom 182

V.V.R. N.M. Subbayya Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, AIR 1951 SC 101: 1951(1) MLJ 810: 1951 SCJ 145: 1950 SCR 961

L. Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi, 1971(1) SCR 101: AIR 1970 SC 1286: 1970 (1) SCC 677

Kishori Lal v. Mt. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504: 1959 SCJ 560: 1959 Supp (1) SCR 698

Mahalingam v. Kannayyan, AIR 1990 Mad 333

Baru (Since deceased) v. Tej Pal, AIR 1998 All 230

Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidhut Board v. Chhathu Ram 1999 (5) SCC 673

Lalman v. Director of Consolidation, 1998(8) SCC 693

Kishori Lal v. Mt. Chaltibai, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 698: AIR 1959 SC 504: 1959 SCJ 560

N. Kasturi v. D. Ponnammal, AIR 1961 SC 1302: 1961(2) SCA 560: 1961(3) SCR 955

Voleti Venkata Ramarao v. Kesaparagada Bhaskararao, AIR 1969 SC 1359: 1969 (2) SCJ 79: 1969 MLJ (SC) 105: 1970(1) SCR 301: 1969(2) SCC 79

Shyam Sunder Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 178: 1980 Supp SCC 720: 1981(1) SCR 1

Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango, AIR 1954 SC 379: 57 Bom LR 678: 1955(1) SCR 1

Govind Hanumantha Rao Desai v. Nagappa, 1972(3) SCR 200: AIR 1972 SC 1401: 1972(1) SCC 515

Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango, AIR 1954 SC 379: 57 Bom LR 678: 1955(1) SCR 1

Salig Ram v. Munshi Ram, AIR 1961 SC 1374: 1962(1) SCJ 130: 1962(1) SCR 470

ITAT v. Estate of Late Nulli Lakshminarayana, 1979 (116) ITR 739 (AP)

Controller of Estate Duty, Madras v. M.Ct. Muthiah, AIR 1986 SC 1863: 1986 Supp SCC 375: 1986 (3) SCR 315: 1986(2) Scale 54

Salig Ram v. Munshi Ram, AIR 1961 SC 1374: 1962(1) SCJ 130: 1962(1) SCR 470

Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar, AIR 1974 SC 878: 1974(2) SCJ 162: 1974(2) SCC 156: 1974(3) SCR 474

Shiba Prasad Singh v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi, AIR 1932 PC 216; Mirza Raja Pushpavathi Vijayaram v. Sri Pushavathi Visweswar, AIR 1964 SC 118: 1964(2) SCR 403

Parbati Devi v. Bansi Dhar, AIR 1943 All 360

as laid down in Jupudi Venkata Vijaya Bhaskar v. Jupudi Kesave Rao, AIR 1994 AP 134 (DB)

Sitabai v. Ramchandra, AIR 1970 SC 343: 1969 Mah LJ 926: 1970(2) SCR 1: 1969(2) SCC 544

CIT v. Bhagat Singh, 1998 (229) ITR 239 (P&H)

C. Krishna Prasad v. C.I.T. Bangalore, AIR 1975 SC 498: 1975(1) All LR 17: 1975(1) SCC 160: 1975(2) SCR 709

CIT v. Bhagat Singh, 1998 (229) ITR 239 (P&H)

Arjun Banchhor v. Buchi Banchhor, AIR 1995 Ori 32

Raghunath Behera v. Balaram Behera, AIR 1996 Ori 38

T.S. Srinivasan v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1962 Mad 146: ILR 1962 Mad 244: 1962(1) Mad LJ 163: 1962(45) ITR 444

Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh v. Mallappa Chanbasappa, AIR 1964 SC 510: 66 Bom LR 284: 1964 MPLJ 133: 1964(4) SCR 497

T.S. Srinivasan v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1962 Mad 146: ILR 1962 Mad 244: 1962(1) Mad LJ 163: 1962(45) ITR 444

Raman Nadar Viswanathan Nadar v. Snehappoo Rasalamma, 1970(2) SCR 471: AIR 1970 SC 1759: 1970 (2) SCJ 738: 1969(3) SCC 42

ibid

H.P. Veeresh v. Channabasamm, AIR 1992 Kant 95

Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar, AIR 1974 SC 878: 1974(2) SCJ 162: 1974(2) SCC 156: 1974(3) SCR 474

Akhay Kumar v. Sarada Dai, AIR 1995 Ori 212

Umayal Aghi v. Lakshmi Achi, 1945 (7) Federal Court Reports 1

Controller of Estate Duty, Madras v. Alladi Kuppuswamy, AIR 1977 SC 2069: 1977(3) SCC 385: 1977(3) SCR 721

Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405: 1966(1) SCWR 222: 1966(1) SCR 606

Chandrani Bai v. Pradeep Kumar, AIR 1991 MP 286

Bhagabat Prasad Das v. Haimabati Devi, AIR 1990 Ori 70 (DB); Duli Prusty v. Ketaki Prusty, AIR 1994 Ori 10

Meera Nireshwalia v. Sukumar Nireshwalia, AIR 1994 Mad 168 (DB)

Manali Singhal v. Ravi Singhal, 1998 (6) AD (Del) 749: 1999 (77) DLT 700

Banda Manikyam v. Banda Venkayamma, AIR 1957 AP 710

Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. V. Sesha Reddi, 1977 (3) SCR 261; AIR 1977 SC 1944; 1977 (3) SCC 99

Neelam Malhotra v. Rajinder Malhotra, AIR 1994 Del 234: 1993 (3) AD 118 (Del): 1993 (51) DLT 588: 1993 (2) DMC 547: 1993 RLR 69 (N)

A.G. Vardarajulu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998(4) SCC 231: 1998 SC 1388: 1998 (2) Scale 441

Hari Lal v. Balvantia, AIR 1998 All 211

Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo, AIR 1981 SC 1937: 1981(4) SCC 613: 1982(1) SCR 417: 1981(3) Scale 1425

Madan Mohan Behl v. Vena Rani, 1981 (1) DMC 249: 1984 (6) DRJ 30: 1984 RLR 57

Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti, AIR 1947 PC 189

Hari Krishan Dass v. Jai Krishan Dass, 1996 (3) AD 920 (Del): 1996 (38) DRJ 597

R. Subramania Iyer v. CIT, AIR 1955 Mad 623

Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh, AIR 1969 SC 1076: 1969 (2) SCJ 668: 1969(3) SCR 245: 1969(1) SCC 386

Brajananda Pradhan v. Sachidananda Pradhan, AIR 1990 Ori 29

Inder Kuer v. Pirthipal Kuer, AIR 1945 PC 128; Pata Sahu v. Hiru Sahu, AIR 1991 Pat 276

Indranarayan v. Roop Narayan, AIR 1971 SC 1962: 1971 (2) SCC 438: 1971 Supp. SCR 796

K.V. Narayanaswami Iyer v. K.V. Ramakrishna Iyer, AIR 1965 SC 289: 1965(1) AndhWR 78: 1965(1) MadLJ (SC) 78: 1964(7) SCR 490

Banchhanidhi Giri v. Jema, AIR 1962 Ori 43

Binod Jena v. Abdul Hamid Khan, AIR 1975 Ori 159

Devi Singh v. Phulma, AIR 1961 HP 10

Purnabashi Mishra v. Raj Kumari Mishra, AIR 1995 Ori 284 (DB)

Chito Mahto v. Lila Mahto, AIR 1991 Pat 186

Roop Chand v. Indradevi, AIR 1997 MP 200

Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango, AIR 1954 SC 379: 57 Bom LR 678: 1954 SCA 878: 1954 SCJ 408: 1955(1) SCR 1; Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh, AIR 1969 SC 1076: 1969 (2) SCJ 668: 1969(3) SCR 245: 1969(1) SCC 386

Akshoy Kumar Bose v. Sukumar Dutta, AIR 1951 Cal 320

Bhagwati Prasad Sah v. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer, AIR 1952 SC 72: 1952 SCJ 115: 1951 SCR 603

Acharji Ahir v. Harai Ahir, 1930 ALJ 1974

Sant Ram v. Parmanand, AIR 1978 P&H 158

G. Narayana Raju v. G. Chamaraju, AIR 1968 SC 1276: 1968 (2) SCJ 749: 1968(3) SCR 464

Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa, AIR 1961 SC 1268: 1962(2) Mad LJ (SC) 154: 1961(3) SCR 779

Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi, AIR 1962 SC 287: 1962(3) SCR 440.

Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 1722: 1970 (2) SCC 390: 1971(1) SCR 522

Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi, AIR 1962 SC 287: 1962(3) SCR 440.

Pushpa Devi v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 2230: 1977(4) SCC 184: 1978(1) SCR 329: 1977 Hindu LR 598

Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama, AIR 1963 SC 1601: 1964(2) SCR 172

Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa, AIR 1961 SC 1268: 1962(2) Mad LJ (SC) 154: 1961(3) SCR 779

Meenakshy v. Vellakutty, AIR 1991 Ker 148

Gurusamy Naicker v. G. Jayaraman, AIR 1996 Mad 212

Murugesa Naicker (died) v. M. Sadayappa Naicker, AIR 1997 Mad 4

Bipra Charan Mohanty v. Mohan Sundar Mohanty, AIR 1960 Ori 109

Puttrangamma v. M.S. Ranganna, AIR 1968 SC 1018: 1968 (2) SCJ 668: 1968(3) SCR 119

Bhagwati Prasad Sah v. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer, AIR 1952 SC 72: 1952 SCJ 115: 1951 SCR 603

R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekaran, AIR 1990 Mad 353 (DB)

Chattanatha Karayalar v. Ramachandra Iyer, AIR 1955 SC 799: 1956 Ker LJ 371: 58 Pun LR 314: 1956 SCJ 1: 1955(2) SCR 477

Purna Bai v. Ranchhoddas, AIR 1992 AP 270 (DB)

G. Narayana Raju v. G. Chamaraju, AIR 1968 SC 1276: 1968 (2) SCJ 749: 1968(3) SCR 464

Chakka Purnachandrarao v. Kunala Mallikharjuna Rao, AIR 1961 AP 247

P. Rajulu Goud v. P Jeevan Kumar, AIR 1994 AP 152

Chandrakant Manilal Shah v. CIT, AIR 1992 SC 66: 1991 Supp (1) SCR 546: 1992(1) SCC 76: 1991(2) Scale 827: 1991(4) JT 171

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, West Bengal, v. M/s. Bishwanath Chatterjee, AIR 1976 SC 1492: 1976(3) SCC 385: 1976(3) SCR 1096

Chetti Balakrishnamma alias Balakrishna v. Chetti Chandrasekher Rao, AIR 1991 Ori 332 (DB)

Umayal Aghi v. Lakshmi Achi, 1945 (7) Fedral Court Reports 1

CIT v. Om Prakash, 1999 (6) SCC 349

Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Kalu Baby Lal Chand, AIR 1959 SC 1289: 1960 SCJ 311: 1960 (1) SCR 320

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar v. Trilok Nath Mehrotra 1998 (2) SCC 289: 1998 (4) JT 246

K.S. Subbiah Pillai v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1999 (3) SCC 170: 1999(2) Scale 14

Lakshmi Chand Khajuria v. Ishroo Devi, AIR 1977 SC 1694: 1977(2) SCC 501: 1977(3) SCR 400

Satraj Kuari's case 15 IA 51; Rama Krishna v. Venkata Kumara, 26 IA 83 (PC)

Gangadhara v. Rajah of Pittapur, 45 IA 148

Baijnath's case, 48 IA 195

Shiba Prasad Singh v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi, AIR 1932 PC 216

Sri Rajah Velugoti Kumara Krishna Yachendra Varu v. Sri Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachandra Varu, AIR 1970 SC 1795: 1970 (3) SCR 88: 1969(3) SCC 281

Mirza Raja Pushpavathi Vijayaram v. Sri Pushavathi Visweswar, AIR 1964 SC 118: 1964(2) SCR 403

Dattatraya alias Prakash v. Krishna Rao alias Lala Saheb Baxi, AIR 1991 SC 1972: 1993 Supp (1) SCC 32: 1991(3) SCR 644: 1991(2) Scale 1991: 1991(6) JT 160

Thakore Shri Vinayasinhji v. Kumar Shri Natwarsinhji, AIR 1988 SC 247: 1988 Supp. SCC 133: 1988(1) SCR 1110: 1987(2) Scale 1193: 1987(4) JT 455: 1988(29) Guj LR 367

Dattatraya alias Prakash v. Krishna Rao alias Lala Saheb Baxi, AIR 1991 SC 1972: 1993 Supp (1) SCC 32: 1991(3) SCR 644: 1991(2) Scale 1991: 1991(6) JT 160

Mangala v. Jayabai, AIR 1994 Kant 276 (DB)

Union of India v. Shree Ram Bohra, AIR 1965 SC 1531: 1965 BLJR 589: 1965(2) SCR 830

CIT v. Om Prakash, 1999 (6) SCC 349

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara, Nagpur v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, AIR 1966 SC 24: 1965 MPLJ 913: 1965(3) SCR 488

Firm Bhagat Ram Mohanlal v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax Nagpur, AIR 1956 SC 374: 1956(1) Mad LJ 160: 1956 SCR 143

CIT v. Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwalla and Sons, 1997(223) ITR 45 (Gau)

Chandrani Bai v. Pradeep Kumar, AIR 1991 MP 286

Shrishailappa v. Muttawwa, 1982 (1) KLJ 9: AIR 1982 Kant 334

S. Melagiriyappa v. V. Lalithamma, AIR 1961 Mys 152

M. Shanmugha Udayar v. Sivanandam, AIR 1994 Mad 123 (DB)

Savitri Devi v. Jiwan Chaudhary, AIR 1960 Pat 548: 1960 BLJR 437

Nanchand Gangaram Shetji v. Mallappa Mahalingappa Sadalge, AIR 1976 SC 835: 1976(2) SCC 429: 1976(3) SCR 287

Maharaja Pratap Singh v. Maharani Sarojini Devi, 1993 Supp(1) SCR 607: 1994 Supp (1) SCC 734: 1993 (2) HLR 272

as laid down in Raja Ram v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, AIR 1993 All 72

Raja Ram v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, AIR 1993 All 72

Mangala v. Jayabai, AIR 1994 Kar 276 (DB)

Baba v. Thimma, (1884) 7 Mad 357

Jamunabai v. Surendrakumar, AIR 1995 MP 274

C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1953 SC 495: 1953 SCJ 707: 1954 SCR 243

Dayaram v. Dawalatshah, AIR 1971 SC 681: 1971)1) SCC 358: 1971(3) SCR 324

Thakore Shri Vinayasinhji v. Kumar Shri Natwarsinhji 1988 Supp SCC 133: 1988 (1) SCR 1110: AIR 1988 SC 247: 1988 (1) HLR 389

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, 1986 (3) SCR 254

Girdharilal Gangrade v. Fatehchand Gangrade, AIR 1955 MB 148

Vineet Kumar Gupta v. Pradip Kumar Gupta, 1996 (1) AD 891 (Del): 1996 (61) DLT 734: 1996 (36) DRJ 685

Kalooram Govindram v. CIT, 1965(57) ITR 335 (SC)

Vineet Kumar Gupta v. Pradip Kumar Gupta, 1996 (1) AD 891 (Del): 1996 (61) DLT 734: 1996 (36) DRJ 685

A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136: 1964(2) SCR 933

Brahm Narayan v. Rajesh Kumar, AIR 1992 MP 297

Kesavan v. Narayanan, AIR 1953 TC 118

Bhagwati Prasad Sah v. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer, AIR 1952 SC 72: 1952 SCJ 115: 1951 SCR 603

Pata Sahu v. Hiru Sahu, AIR 1991 Pat 276

Reoti Devi v. Bhagwan Dayal, AIR 1954 All 801

Santanu Kumar Das v. Bairagi Charan Das, AIR 1995 Ori 300

Bhagwant P. Sulakhe v. Digambar Gopal Sulakhe, AIR 1986 SC 79: 1986(1) SCC 366: 1985 Supp. (3) SCR 169: 1985(2) Scale 819: 1986(88) Bom. LR 24

Jugal Kishore Singh v. Gobind Singh, AIR 1992 Pat 128; Pata Sahu v. Hiru Sahu, AIR 1991 Pat 276; Kesavan v. Narayanan, AIR 1953 TC 118

Roop Chand v. Indradevi, AIR 1997 MP 200

M. Shanmugha Udayar v. Sivanandam, AIR 1994 Mad 123 (DB)

Mt. Beti v. Sikandar Singh, AIR 1928 All 39

Virdhachalam Pillai v. Chaldean Syrian Bank Ltd., Trichur, AIR 1964 SC 1425: 1964 KerLJ 478: 1964(5) SCR 647

Tejraj v. Mohanlal, AIR 1955 Raj 157

Ramalaxmi Ranchudlal v. The State Bank of Baroda Ltd., AIR 1953 Bom 50

Haria v. Bhindru, AIR 1950 HP 8

Gurmukh Ram v. Bhagwan Das Madan, 1998(7) SCC 367: AIR 1998 SC 2776

Ramadin Jitrai Rathore v. Gokulprasad, AIR 1959 MP 251: 1959 Jab LJ 277: 1959 MPLJ 329: 1959 MPC 286

Pata Sahu v. Hiru Sahu, AIR 1991 Pat 276

Govind Dass v. Sarju Bai, AIR 1954 All 449

Gauri v. Ibrahim, AIR 1980 Ker 94

Gummanna Shetty v. Nagaveniamma, AIR 1967 SC 1595: 1967 (2) Mys LJ 290: 1967(3) SCR 932

Puttrangamma v. M.S. Ranganna, AIR 1968 SC 1018: 1968 (2) SCJ 668: 1968(3) SCR 119

Kalyani. v. Narayanan, AIR 1980 SC 1173: 1980 Supp. SCC 298: 1980(2) SCR 1130

Girdharilal Gangrade v. Fatehchand Gangrade, AIR 1955 MB 148

Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh, AIR 1969 SC 1076: 1969 (2) SCJ 668: 1969(3) SCR 245: 1969(1) SCC 386

Fatechand Mahesri v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 Ori 266: 1972 Cut WR 851

Repaka Appalanaras v. Repaka Udalama, AIR 1959 AP 407

Pavitri Devi v. Darbari Singh, 1993 Supp(2) SCR 162: 1993 (4) SCC 392: 1993 (2) HLR 265

P.G. Hariharan v. Padaril, AIR 1994 Ker 36

Kuppuswamy v. Periannan, AIR 1996 Mad 342

Indranarayan v. Roop Narayan, AIR 1971 SC 1962: 1971 (2) SCC 438: 1971 Supp. SCR 796

Nabisha Begum v. Arumuga Thevar, 1974(1) Mad LJ 201: AIR 1974 Mad 273

Govind Hanumantha Rao Desai v. Nagappa, 1972(3) SCR 200: AIR 1972 SC 1401: 1972(1) SCC 515

R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekaran, AIR 1990 Mad 353 (DB)

Ratneshwari Nandan Singh v. Bhogwati Saran Singh, AIR 1950 FC 142

Gur Narain Das v. Gur Tahal Das, AIR 1952 SC 225: 1952 SCJ 305: 1952 SCR 869

Perumal Gounder v. Pachayappan, AIR 1990 Mad 110

Singhai Ajit Kumar v. Ujayar Singh, AIR 1961 SC 1334: 1961 Andh LT 788: 1961(2) Ker LR 36: 1961(2) Mad LJ (SC) 193: 1962(1) SCR 347

Ganapati Santaram Bhosale v. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni, AIR 1985 Kant 143: ILR 1985 Kant 115

Raghunath Tiwary v. Ramakant Tiwary, AIR 1991 Pat 145

Rukma Bai v. Ramratan, AIR 1951 Nag 350

Kamini Bewa v. Srimati Dei, AIR 1990 Ori 155

Sadashivappa v. Shivayogappa, AIR 1997 Kant 249

Nani Bai v. Gita Bai Kom Rama Gunge, AIR 1958 SC 706: 1959 SCR 479: 1958 SCJ 925

Ganesh Sahu v. Dwarika Sao, AIR 1991 Pat 1

Mt. Beti v. Sikandar Singh, AIR 1928 All 39

Madhava Mennon v. Esthapanose, AIR 1952 TC 428

Bai Nani v. Manilal Lallubhai, AIR 1977 SC 970: 1977(2) SCC 536: 1977(2) SCR 920; Gur Narain Das v. Gur Tahal Das, AIR 1952 SC 225: 1952 SCJ 305: 1952 SCR 869

Bhimraj Bansidhar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1955 Pat 172

relying upon observations of Lord Westbury in Appovier's case 1866 (11) MIA 75 (PC)

CIT v. Seth Gopaldas (HUF), 1979 (116) ITR 577 (MP)

Apoorva Shantilal Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad, AIR 1983 SC 409: 1983(2) SCC 155: 1983(2) SCR 492: 1983(1) Scale 181

Palani Ammal v. Muthuvenkatachala Moniagar, AIR 1925 PC 49

Devi Singh v. Phulma, AIR 1961 HP 10

Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124: 1967 All LJ 475: 1967 BLJR 513: 1967(1) SCR 93

Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi v. Narasingsa Bhaskara Kabadi, AIR 1961 SC 1077: 63 Bom LR 659: 1961(3) SCR 792

Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124: 1967 All LJ 475: 1967 BLJR 513: 1967(1) SCR 93

Apoorva Shantilal Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad, AIR 1983 SC 409: 1983(2) SCC 155: 1983(2) SCR 492: 1983(1) Scale 181

UOI v. M.V. Valliappan, 1998(8) SCC 609

Union of India v. M.V. Valliappan, 1999 (6) SCC 259

CIT v. Onkar Saran and Brothers, 1991(188) ITR 320 (All)

CIT (A.P.) v. Venugopal Inani, 1998 (9) SCC 657: 1999 (239) ITR 514 (SC)

Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT, 1982 (1) SCC 447: 1982 (133) ITR 690; Income Tax Officer v. N.K. Sarada Thampatty, AIR 1991 SC 2035: 1991 Supp (2) SCC 737: 1990 Supp (1) SCR 473: 1990 (2) Scale 701: 1990 (4) JT 358; 1991 (187) ITR 696

T.S. Swaminatha Odayar v. Official Receiver of West Tanjore, AIR 1957 SC 577: 1957(2) And WR (SC) 53: 1957(2) Mad LJ (SC) 53: 1957 SCR 775

Balaji Ganoba v. Annapurnabai, AIR 1952 Nag 2

Bajaji Ganoba v. Annapurnabai, AIR 1952 Nag 2

Medam Seshanna Chetty v. Medam Sankranarayana Chetty, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 695

Damodara Nayak v. Vatsala Nayak, AIR 1990 Ker 348

Heir of Barot Dansang v. Barot Kanji Hirji, AIR 1998 Guj 27

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, 1986 (3) SCR 254

Gian Chand Kapur (dead) by LRs. v. Rabindra Mohan Kapur, AIR 1987 SC 240: 1987(1) SCC 80: 1987(1) SCR 398: 1986(2) Scale 948: 1986 JT 958: 1987 Rajdhani LR 83

Kalyani (dead) by LRs. v. Narayanan, AIR 1980 SC 1173: 1980 Supp. SCC 298: 1980(2) SCR 1130

Bhimraj Bansidhar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1955 Pat 172

CIT v. S. Balasubramanian 1998(3) SCC 596: AIR 1998 SC 424: 1998 (2) JT 608

Babu Lal v. Chandrika Prasad, AIR 1977 NOC 229 (All)

Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi v. Narasingsa Bhaskara Kabadi, AIR 1961 SC 1077: 63 Bom LR 659: 1961(3) SCR 792

Debabrata Ghose v. Jnanendra Ghose, AIR 1980 Cal 381

Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh v. Mallappa Chanbasappa, AIR 1964 SC 510: 66 Bom LR 284: 1964 MPLJ 133: 1964(4) SCR 497

Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar, AIR 1974 SC 878: 1974(2) SCJ 162: 1974(2) SCC 156: 1974(3) SCR 474

Murarka Properties (P) Ltd. v. Begarilal Murarka, AIR 1978 SC 300: 1978(1) SCC 109: 1978(2) SCR 261: 1978 Hindu LR 88

P.G. Hariharan v. Padaril, AIR 1994 Ker 36

Venkatesh Dhonddev Deshpande v. Sou. Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni, AIR 1978 SC 1791: 1979(1) SCC 98: 1979(1) SCR 955

Luhar Amrit Lal Nagji v. Doshi Jayantilal Jethalal, AIR 1960 SC 964: 1962(1) SCJ 282: 1960(3) SCR 842

Atchutam v. Ratnaji, 23 (1926) LW 193 (Mad); Sreerama Raju v. Palam Raju, 1963 (1) AnWR 255

Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, AIR 1953 SC 487: 1953 SCJ 700: 1954 SCR 177

Sreerama Raju v. Palam Raju, 1963 (1) AnWR 255

Anthonyswamy v. M.R. Chinaswamy Koundan, AIR 1970 SC 223: 1970 (2) SCR 648: 1969(3) SCC 15

Onkaramma v. Karisiddappa, AIR 1956 Mysore 11

K.M. Raghothaman v. M.P. Kannappan, AIR 1982 Mad 235

Manibhai v. Hamraj, 1990 (3) SCC 58

Pannalal v. Mt. Naraini, AIR 1952 SC 170: 1952 SCJ 211: 1952 SCR 544

Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, AIR 1953 SC 487: 1953 SCJ 700: 1954 SCR 177

Sarangapani v. K.V. Parthiban, AIR 1992 Mad 203

Prasad v. Govindaswami Mudaliar, AIR 1982 SC 84: 1982(1) SCC 185: 1982(2) SCR 109: 1981(3) Scale 1867

K.V. Narayanan v. K.V. Ranganadhan, AIR 1976 SC 1715: 1977(1) SCC 244: 1976(3) SCR 637

Nanchand Gangaram Shetji v. Mallappa Mahalingappa Sadalge, AIR 1976 SC 835: 1976(2) SCC 429: 1976(3) SCR 287

Prasad v. Govindaswami Mudaliar, AIR 1982 SC 84: 1982(1) SCC 185: 1982(2) SCR 109: 1981(3) Scale 1867

Venkatesh Dhonddev Deshpande v. Sou. Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni, AIR 1978 SC 1791: 1979(1) SCC 98: 1979(1) SCR 955

Kathaperumal Pillai v. Rajendra , AIR 1959 Madras 409: 1958 (2) Mad LJ 183

Kalishanker Das v. Dhirendra Nath, AIR 1954 SC 505: 1954 Mad WN 769: 1954 SCJ 670: 1955(1) SCR 467

Radha Rani Bhargava v. Hanuman Prasad Bhargava, AIR 1966 SC 216: 1966(2) SCJ 587: 1966(1) SCR 1

Chakka Lakshminarayana v. Konnepati China Subbarao, AIR 1990 AP 164 (DB)

S.M. Jakati v. S.M. Borkar, AIR 1959 SC 282: 61 Bom LR 688: 1959 Cal LJ 81: 1959 SCR 1384

Luhar Amrit Lal Nagji v. Doshi Jayantilal Jethalal, AIR 1960 SC 964: 1962(1) SCJ 282: 1960(3) SCR 842

Faqir Chand v. Sardarni Harnam Kaur, AIR 1967 SC 727: 1963 All LJ 343: 1963 All WR 292: 1966 (68) Pun LR (D) 343: 1967(1) SCR 68

S.M. Jakati v. S.M. Borkar, AIR 1959 SC 282: 61 Bom LR 688: 1959 Cal LJ 81: 1959 SCR 1384

Pannalal v. Naraini, AIR 1952 SC 170: 1952 SCJ 211: 1952 SCR 544

Phool Chand v. Lalit Kishore, AIR 1969 All 155

Gutta Radhakristnayya v. Gutta Sarasamma, AIR 1951 Mad 213

Kalyani. v. Narayanan, AIR 1980 SC 1173: 1980 Supp. SCC 298: 1980(2) SCR 1130

V.N. Sarin v. Ajit Kumar Poplai, AIR 1966 SC 432: 1966(68) Pun LR 164: 1966(1) SCR 349

Devagya v. Shivgya, AIR 1973 Mys 4: 1972(2) Mys LJ 340

Aher Hamir Duda v. Ahir Duda Arjan, 1978 Hindu LR 112 (Guj)

Chinnathayi v. Kulasekara Pandiya Naicker, AIR 1952 SC 29: 1052 SCJ 1: 1952 SCR 241

Damodara Nayak v. Vatsala Nayak, AIR 1990 Ker 348

Veerabhadrappa v. Lingappa, AIR 1963 Mys 5

Sunanda Suri v. Kamlesh Suri, 1998 (5) AD (Del) 383: 1998 (46) DRJ 588

Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama, AIR 1963 SC 1601: 1964(2) SCR 172

Raghunath Tiwary v. Ramakant Tiwary, AIR 1991 Pat 145

Manohar Lal v. Richhpal, 1997 (1) AD 62 (Del): 1997 (65) DLT 628: 1997 (41) DRJ 163

Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama, AIR 1963 SC 1601: 1964(2) SCR 172

Apoorva Shantilal Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad, AIR 1983 SC 409: 1983(2) SCC 155: 1983(2) SCR 492: 1983(1) Scale 181

in Ratnam Chettiar v. S.M. Kuppuswami Chettiar, AIR 1976 SC 1: 1976(1) SCC 214: 1976(1) SCR 863: 1976 Hindu LR 175

Ratnam Chettiar v. S.M. Kuppuswami Chettiar, AIR 1976 SC 1: 1976(1) SCC 214: 1976(1) SCR 863: 1976 Hindu LR 175

Dwarampudi Nagaratnamba v. Kunuku Ramayya, AIR 1968 SC 253: 1967 (2) Andh LT 420: 1968 (1) Andh WR (SC) 110: 1968 (1) Mad LJ (SC) 110: 1968(1) SCR 43

Saraswathi Ammal v. Anantha Shenai, AIR 1966 Ker 66: 1965 Ker LT 141: 1965 Ker LJ 284: 1965(1) ILR 420

Kamini Bewa v. Srimati Dei, AIR 1990 Ori 155

Lakshmi Chand Khajuria v. Ishroo Devi, AIR 1977 SC 1694: 1977(2) SCC 501: 1977(3) SCR 400

Chando Mahtain v. Khublal Mahto, I (1983) DMC 171 Patna.

Kasturi Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 2595: 1976 (4) SCC 674: 1977 (2) SCR 25

Parbati Devi (Mt.) v. Bansi Dhar, AIR 1943 All 360

A.G. Vardarajulu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998(4) SCC 231: 1998 SC 1388: 1998 (2) Scale 441

Santosh Kumar Jain v. Bahadur Singh Jain, 1982 (3) DRJ 377: 1982 RLR 672

Rankanidhi Sahu v. Nandakishore Sahu, AIR 1990 Ori 64

Siromani v. Hemkumar, AIR 1968 SC 1299: 1968 All CJ 1025: 1968 BLJR 969: 1968 MPLJ 792: 1968 Mah LJ 791: 1968(3) SCR 639

Radhamoni Bhuiyanin v. Dibakar Bhuiya, AIR 1991 Pat 95

Gurusamy Naicker v. G. Jayaraman, AIR 1996 Mad 212

Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat v. Shri Kantilal Trikamlal, AIR 1976 SC 1935: 1976(4) SCC 643: 1977(1) SCR 9

Sunanda Suri v. Kamlesh Suri, 1998 (5) AD 383: 1998 (46) DRJ 588

Ratnam Chettiar v. S.M. Kuppuswami Chettiar, AIR 1976 SC 1: 1976(1) SCC 214: 1976(1) SCR 863: 1976 Hindu LR 175

Radhamoni Bhuiyanin v. Dibakar Bhuiya, AIR 1991 Pat 95

B. Rajamma v. Ananthakrishnan Potti, AIR 1991 Ker 272

Mahanti Matyalu v. Oluru Appanama, AIR 1993 Ori 36 (FB)

Atul Kumar v. Ram Avtar Gupta, 1995 (4) AD 264 (Del): 1995 (3) DL 61: 1995 (60) DLT 451: 1995 (35) DRJ 304

Nalla Venkateshwarlu v. Porise Pullamma, AIR 1994 AP 87

Mahanti Matyalu v. Oluru Appanama, AIR 1993 Orissa 36 (FB): 1992 (2) Civ LJ 675: (1992) 74 Cut LT 433: 1993 Civil Court Case 75: 1993 (1) Hindu LR 665: 1993 Marri LJ 297: 1992 (2) Ori LR 304: 1993 (1) LJR 139.

Bimal Krishna Khanna v. Kamal Nain Khanna, AIR 1999 Del 327: 1999(80) DLT 769: 1999(4) AD (Del) 881: 1999(51) DRJ 462: 1999 RLR 71(N): 1999(S) ArbLR 247

Dudh Nath v. Sat Narain Ram, AIR 1966 All 315: 1966 All LJ 107

Biranchi Narayan Hadu v. Krushnapriya Debi, AIR 1991 Ori 55

Pathu Reddiar v. Kandaswami, AIR 1950 Mad 560

Maharu v. Dhansai, AIR 1992 MP 220

A. Basavaraj v. Kushal Chand, AIR 1992 Kant 393 (DB)

Maharu v. Dhansai, AIR 1992 MP 220

Muniyappa v. Ramaiah, AIR 1996 Kant 321

Pavitri Devi v. Darbari Singh, 1993 Supp(2) SCR 162: 1993 (4) SCC 392: 1993 (2) HLR 265

Golaka Chandra Nayak v. Gobinda Nayak, AIR 1996 Ori 189

Jagdish Dutt v. Dharam Pal, 1999 (3) SCC 644 (DB): 1999(2) Scale 541

Golaka Chandra Nayak v. Gobinda Nayak, AIR 1996 Orissa 189: 1996 (3) Civil LJ 327: 1996 (82) Cut LT 205: 1996 (2) Civil Court C 307.

Ramdayal v. Manaklal, AIR 1973 MP 222 (FB): 1973 MPLJ 650

Sarangapani v. K.V. Parthiban, AIR 1992 Mad 203

A. Basavaraj v. Kushal Chand, AIR 1992 Kant 393 (DB)

Biranchi Narayan Hadu v. Krushnapriya Debi, AIR 1991 Ori 55

Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath, AIR 1971 SC 1028: 1970(3) SCC 722: 1971(2) SCR 603; as to determination of legal necessity of different expenses see T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities v. M. Raghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC 794: 1961(3) SCR 624

Rani v. Smt. Santa Bala Debnath, AIR 1971 SC 1028: 1970(3) SCC 722: 1971(2) SCR 603

Kalishanker Das v. Dhirendra Nath, AIR 1954 SC 505: 1954 Mad WN 769: 1954 SCJ 670: 1955 SCR 467

K.C. Kapoor v. Smt. Radhika Devi (dead) by LRs., AIR 1981 SC 2128: 1981(4) SCC 487: 1982(1) SCR 907: 1981(3) Scale 1565

Vanimisatti Anil Kumar v. Jayavarapu Krishna Murty, AIR 1995 AP 105

Iswar Das v. Muralidhar Rai, AIR 1992 Ori 170

Birupakshya Das v. Kunja Behari, AIR 1961 Ori 104

Ram Jash Agarwalla v. Chand Mandal, ILR (1937) 2 Cal 764: 41 CWN 1176

Sivanandy v. Bhagvathyamma, AIR 1962 Mad 400

Venkatacharyulu v. Rangacharyulu 1891 ILR 14 Mad 316: 1 Mad LJ 85

Pinninti Venkataramna v. State, AIR 1977 AP 43

Naumi v. Narotam, AIR 1963 HP 15

Alka Sharma v. Abhinesh Chandra Sharma, AIR 1991 MP 205

Karunakar Rout alias Thatei v. Golak Behari Biswal, AIR 1995 Ori 110 (DB)

Baba v. Thimma, (1884) 7 Mad 357

Jamunabai v. Surendrakumar, AIR 1995 MP 274

Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh v. Mallappa Chanbasappa, AIR 1964 SC 510: 66 Bom LR 284: 1964 MPLJ 133: 1964(4) SCR 497

T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities v. M. Raghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC 797: 1961(3) SCR 624

Kalawatibai v. Soiryabai, 1991(2) SCR 599: AIR 1991 SC 1581: 1992 (1) HLR 25: 1991 (2) DMC 143: 1991 (3) SCC 410

Brajabandhu Misra v. Luhurani Misra, AIR 1996 Ori 50

Umayal Aghi v. Lakshmi Achi, 1945 (7) Fedral Court Reports 1

Kalishanker Das v. Dhirendra Nath, AIR 1954 SC 505: 1954 Mad WN 769: 1954 SCJ 670: 1955 SCR 467

Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey, AIR 1962 SC 83: 1962 (1) An WR (SC) 258: 1962 BLJR 153: 1962(2) SCR 558

Gogula Gurmurthy v. Kurimeti Ayyappa, AIR 1974 SC 1702: 1974 SCD 566: 1974(3) SCR 595: 1975(4) SCC 458

Jagdish Chander Gulati v. Kanta Devi, 1996 (36) DRJ 654

Gogula Gurmurthy v. Kurimeti Ayyappa, AIR 1974 SC 1702: 1974 SCD 566: 1974(3) SCR 595: 1975(4) SCC 458

N. Jayalakshmi Ammal v. R.Gopala Pathar, 1994 Supp(3) SCR 310: AIR1995 SC 995: 1995 Supp (1) SCC 27: 1994 (2) DMC 631

Beni Bai v. Raghubir Prasad 1999 (3) SCC 234: 1999(1) Scale 665; R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekaran, AIR 1990 Mad 353 (DB)

T.K. Chandraiah v. Chandraiah, AIR 1992 Kant 153

Dharamwati Bai v. Shiv Singh, AIR 1991 MP 18

Monomoyee Barmani v. Upeswari Barmani, AIR 1994 Gau 18

Angammal v. M. Ramalinga Pandaram, AIR 1992 Mad 246

Rengasami Angurar v. Nacharammal, AIR 1996 Mad 436

Mangamma v. M.B. Subbaramappa Nayanimvaru, AIR 1994 AP 147 (DB)

Kamla Devi v. Bachulal Gupta, AIR 1957 SC 434: 1957 And LT 315: 1957 SCR 452

Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead), AIR 1977 SC 1944

Sheo Kuer v. Nathuni Prasad Singh, AIR 1976 SC 709: 1976(1) SCC 590: 1976(2) SCR 1002

Natvarlal Punjabhai v. Dadubhai Manubhai, AIR 1954 SC 61: 1954 All LJ 81: 56 Bom LR 447: 1954 SCJ 34: 1954 SCR 339

Mummareddi Nagi Reddi v. Pitti Durairaja Naidu, 1951 SCR 655: AIR 1952 SC 109: 1952 SCJ 192

Natvarlal Punjabhai v. Dadubhai Manubhai, AIR 1954 SC 61: 1954 All LJ 81: 56 Bom LR 447: 1954 SCJ 34: 1954 SCR 339

Radha Rani Bhargava v. Hanuman Prasad Bhargava, AIR 1966 SC 216: 1966(2) SCJ 587: 1966(1) SCR 1

Krishna Beharilal v. Gulabchand, AIR 1971 SC 1041: 1971 (1) SCC 837: 1971 Supp. SCR 27

as laid down in Kamla Devi v. Bachulal Gupta, AIR 1957 SC 434: 1957 And LT 315: 1957 SCR 452

Kamla Devi v. Bachulal Gupta, AIR 1957 SC 434: 1957 And LT 315: 1957 SCR 452

Sumer Chand s/o Late Sardha Ram v. Ram Kishan Kaura, AIR 1991 P&H 103

Mummareddi Nagi Reddi v. Pitti Durairaja Naidu, AIR 1952 SC 109: 1952 SCJ 192: 1951 SCR 655

Manvendra Singh v. Rameshwar Dayal, AIR 1991 All 291

Karpagathachi v. Nagarathinathachi, AIR 1965 SC 1752: 1965(2) SCWR 284: 1965(3) SCR 335

M. Shanmugha Udayar v. Sivanandam, AIR 1994 Mad 123 (DB)

Rani Bai v. Yadunandan Ram, AIR 1969 SC 1118: 1969 All LJ 988: 1969(1) SCC 604: 1969(3) SCR 789

Brahmvart Sanathan Dharam Mahamandal, Kanpur v. Prem Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 1102: 1985(3) SCC 350: 1985 Supp. (1) SCR 718: 1985(1) Scale 1058

Ramdayal v. Manaklal, AIR 1973 MP 222 (FB): 1973 MPLJ 650

Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama, AIR 1963 SC 1601: 1964(2) SCR 172

Nanchand Gangaram Shetji v. Mallappa Mahalingappa Sadalge, AIR 1976 SC 835: 1976(2) SCC 429: 1976(3) SCR 287

Venkamamidi Venkata Subba Rao v. Chatlapalli Seetharamaratna Ranganayakamma, 1997 (5) SCC 460: AIR 1997 SC 3082.

Voleti Venkata Ramarao v. Kesaparagada Bhaskararao, AIR 1969 SC 1359: 1969 (2) SCJ 79: 1969 MLJ (SC) 105: 1970(1) SCR 301: 1969(2) SCC 79

N. Sreekantaiah v. M.N. Mallikarjunaiah, AIR 1996 Kant 193

Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, AIR 1953 SC 487: 1953 SCJ 700: 1954 SCR 177

Muniyappa v. Ramaiah, AIR 1996 Kant 321

Rameshwar Mistry v. Bebulal Mistry, AIR 1991 Pat 53

Voleti Venkata Ramarao v. Kesaparagada Bhaskararao, AIR 1969 SC 1359: 1969 (2) SCJ 79: 1969 MLJ (SC) 105: 1970(1) SCR 301: 1969(2) SCC 79

Handa Das v. Muralidhar Pati, AIR 1990 Ori 226

Union of India v. Shree Ram Bohra, AIR 1965 SC 1531: 1965 BLJR 589: 1965(2) SCR 830

Nepur Kuer v. Sheochand Sahu, AIR 1961 Pat 57

Handa Das v. Muralidhar Pati, AIR 1990 Ori 226

Kamini Bewa v. Srimati Dei, AIR 1990 Ori 155

Biranchi Narayan Hadu v. Krushnapriya Debi, AIR 1991 Ori 55

Kollepara Puthayya v. Nala Suramma, AIR 1951 Mad 713: 1951(1) MLJ 168: 1951 MWN 414(1): 1951(2) MLJ 48

Ranganayaki Ammal v. Srinivasan, 1973(1) Mad LJ 56

Master Deu v. Laxmi Narayan,1998(8) SCC 701

Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama, AIR 1963 SC 1601: 1964(2) SCR 172

Nepur Kuer v. Sheochand Sahu, AIR 1961 Pat 57

Vishwa Nath v. Prem Nath, AIR 1975 J&K 92

K.V. Narayanaswami Iyer v. K.V. Ramakrishna Iyer, AIR 1965 SC 289: 1965(1) AndhWR 78: 1965(1) MadLJ (SC) 78: 1964(7) SCR 490

Rashiklal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa 1998 (2) SCC 49: AIR 1998 SC 401

Sushil Kumar v. Ram Prakash, AIR 1988 SC 576: 1988(2) SCR 623: 1988(1) Scale 80: 1988(1) JT 387: 1988(94) Pun LR 159

Balmukand v. Kamla Wati, AIR 1964 SC 1385: 66 Pun LR 897: 1964(6) SCR 321

Roop Chand v. Indradevi, AIR 1997 MP 200

Himmat Singh Sandhu v. Joginder Singh Sandhu, 1983 (4) DRJ 294: 1983 RLR 175

Statement of Object and Reasons ibid.

Golaka Chandra Nayak v. Gobinda Nayak, AIR 1996 Orissa 189: 1996 (3) Civil LJ 327: 1996 (82) Cut LT 205: 1996 (2) Civil Court Cases 307.

e.g. his disability entitled him to workers'-compensation benefit

e.g. most of minor's disabilities are removed when he or she turns 18

Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition (1999) at page 474.

Black's Ibid.

Pamela Kumar v. Arun Mohan, 1997(68) DLT 359 [DB]: 1997(5) AD(Delhi) 560: 1997(3) CLT 473

Ghansh Martha v. Brindavan Pradhan, AIR 1977 Ori 154

Rama Nathan Chetty v. Alagappa Chetty, AIR 1930 Mad 528

Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 992

Nabisha Begum v. Arumuga Thevar, 1974(1) Mad LJ 201: AIR 1974 Mad 273

Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal, AIR 1976 SC 1470

Debendra Jena v. Umakanta Jena, AIR 1988 Ori 11

Madhava Mennon v. Esthapanose, AIR1952 TC 428

Kalyan Kumar Basak v. Salil Kumar Basak AIR 1989 Cal 159

S. Narayana Reddy v. S. Sai Reddy, AIR 1990 AP 263

The words 'or of the Court of the Recorder of Rangoon' were omitted by A.O., 1937 w.e.f (1-4-1937).

Nitya Gopal Samanta v. Pran Krishna Dau, AIR 1952 Cal 893

Bimal Krishna Khanna v. Kamal Nain Khanna, AIR 1999 Del 327: 1999(80) DLT 769: 1999(4) AD (Del) 881: 1999(51) DRJ 462: 1999 RLR 71(N): 1999(S) ArbLR 247

N.A. Krishnaiah Setty v. Gopalakrishna, AIR 1974 SC 1911: 1979 (2) SCC 624: 1975(1) SCR 970

Heir of Barot Dansang v. Barot Kanji Hirji, AIR 1998 Guj 27

Ruli Ram v. Amar Singh, AIR 1994 HP 102: 1994 (2) Ren CR 243; See also Tejpal Khandelwal v. Mst Purnima Bai, ILR (1975) Cuttack 1261: AIR 1976 Orissa 62

Sadasiba @ Sadananda Nayak, v. Baban Sahoo, AIR 1994 Orrisa 247: (1994) 77 Cut LT 677.

K.V. Narayanaswami Iyer v. K.V. Ramakrishna Iyer, AIR 1965 SC 289: 1965(1) AndhWR 78: 1965(1) MadLJ (SC) 78: 1964(7) SCR 490

Sushma v. Satish Chander, AIR 1984 Del 1: 1983 (2) DMC 255: 1983 (5) DRJ 305: 1983 RLR 724

Jagdish Dutt v. Dharam Pal, 1999 (3) SCC 644 (DB): 1999(2) Scale 541

Pannalal v. Mt. Naraini, AIR 1952 SC 170: 1952 SCJ 211: 1952 SCR 544

Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, AIR 1953 SC 487: 1953 SCJ 700: 1954 SCR 177

Kalyan Kumar Basak v. Salil Kumar Basak AIR 1989 Cal 159

Rama Nathan Chetty v. Alagappa Chetty, AIR 1930 Mad 528

Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 992

N.A. Krishnaiah Setty v. Gopalakrishna, AIR 1974 SC 1911: 1979 (2) SCC 624: 1975(1) SCR 970

Jacqueline Kapoor v. Surinder Pal Kapoor, AIR 1994 P&H 309

Subs. by Act 104 of 1976, s. 72, for ''thirty days '' (w. e. f. 1-2-1977).

Subs. by s. 72, ibid., for ''fifteen days ''(w. e. f. 1-2-1977).

Subs. by s. 72, ibid., for ''seven''(w. e. f. 1-2-1977).

The words ''or to the Collection or subordinate of the Collector, as the case may be, '' omitted by Act 66 of 1956, s. 14.

Kindle Ebooks:

Ancient Hindu Law and Judicature: (with annotation and illustration)

Commentary on Advocates Act, 1961 & Professional Ethics in India

Commentary on General Clauses Act, 1897 (India)

Commentary on Information Technology Act, 2000 (India)

Commentary on Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (India)

How to make a Will in India

Opuscule of law of Obscenity in India

Principles of Interpretation in India: (with Latin Maxims)

Law of Limitation in India: Limitation Act, 1963

Law of Maintenance in India

Law of Ownership and Transfer of Property in India: Transfer of Properties Act, 1882

Appendix - Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Part of Series: "Law of Joint Property and Partition in India"

Appendix

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

ORDER 21

💬 Comments

Leave a Response