Hulasa Kuar and Another Vs Rahmani Bibi and Others

Allahabad High Court 12 Apr 1878 (1878) 04 AHC CK 0003
Bench: Division Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Hon'ble Bench

Turner, J; Pearson, J

Judgement Text

Translate:

ORDER

1. It having been ruled by the Privy Council. (see Lachmee Buksh Roy v. Runjeet Roy Panday 13 BLR 177 that signature by an agent is not sufficient to satisfy the analogous terms of Act XIV of 1859, we must hold that the acknowledgment in this case is insufficient. Of course we are now considering the acknowledgment required under Act IX of 1871 and not under the present law, of which the terms are more equitable.

2. The lower Appellate Court must determine whether this suit has been instituted within 60 years from the date on which the mortgage was made. It will try this issue and remit its finding to this Court, when ten days will he allowed for objections.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Mutation Rule: Property Sale Registration Cannot Be Blocked by Extra Conditions
Nov
11
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Mutation Rule: Property Sale Registration Cannot Be Blocked by Extra Conditions
Read More
How Indians Can Start a Company in the USA: Step-by-Step Guide, Costs, and Legal Requirements
Nov
11
2025

Court News

How Indians Can Start a Company in the USA: Step-by-Step Guide, Costs, and Legal Requirements
Read More