Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13238 (1.27 seconds)
Documents citing Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011

Bimla Chopra & Anr vs Kuldeep on 2 May, 2023

"40. The Plaintiff herein, is not seeking protection of her possession under Section 53A of the TPA in the present case. She, having purchased the property through various documents namely, Agreement to Sell, Will, letter of possession and receipt, is seeking to evict her son and daughter-in-law who she had permitted to stay with her in the suit property. The Plaintiff only needs to establish a better title than the Defendants and not an absolute title. Suraj Lamps (Supra) clearly holds that though sales by Agreement to Sell, Will, etc, are not legally valid modes of transfer, they are permitted to get the transactions already entered into, regularised.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Shakuntala Rathi vs Sh. Balkishan on 27 February, 2015

6. As far as the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property on the basis of GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell, affidavit, possession letter and receipt all dated 10.03,2003 is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for plaintiff that since the aforesaid documents were executed by defendant no. 6 in favour of the plaintiff much prior to the date of judgment in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 656, the claim of ownership by the plaintiff on the basis of aforesaid documents is not affected CS No. 215/14 Shakuntala Rathi Vs. Balkishan & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S D.S.S. Hotel (P) Ltd. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 4 September, 2019

Similarly, in the present case the mutation order was sanctioned in favour of respondent no.3 and 4 on 24.01.2011 following which a release deed was executed in favour of the petitioner company on 31.1.2011, both of which are prior to the date of decision in Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra).Thereby, the present transaction was not effected by the observations of the said judgement.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - J Nath - Full Document

Smt. Shashi Bala Nagpal vs Sh. Rama Kant Shah on 2 August, 2016

9. I may at this stage state that on the basis of the registered General Power of Attorney executed by Sh. Narendra Paul in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1/husband, the respondent no.1 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of his wife/respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 on 29.6.2010, but this sale deed executed during the pendency of the litigation was not allowed to be brought on record as an application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC of the respondents/plaintiffs was dismissed by the first appellate court. However, that would not make any difference, inasmuch as, respondents/plaintiffs have proved their title to the suit property, inasmuch as, the documents executed in this case give rights to the plaintiffs under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 containing the doctrine of part performance and Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides for irrevocability of a general power of attorney given for consideration. These documents are documents prior to 24.9.2001 when by Act 48 of the year 2001 provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and other related provisions were amended and thereby benefit of the doctrine of part performance after 24.9.2001 could only be taken if the agreement to sell was stamped and registered. The subject documents, therefore, having been executed before 24.9.2001 are valid and confer title upon the respondents/plaintiffs and so held by this Court in the judgment in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Vs. Suresh Chand and Anr., 188 (2012) DLT 538 and in which judgment the relevant paras of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) have been reproduced which allow transactions which are in the nature of doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of RSA No.13/2015 Page 15 of 18 Property Act, and irrevocable general power of attorney falling under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, once the documents are executed prior to 24.9.2001. 10(i) Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant very strongly argued that these documents dated 16.6.1994 cannot confer title upon the respondents/plaintiffs because Sh. Narendra Paul never executed these documents. However, the argument urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant is liable to fail for various reasons.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 9 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Pawan Kumar vs Sushila on 31 May, 2025

2025.05.31 16:27:39 +0530 not documents of transfer and as such the right title and interest of an immovable property do not stand transferred by mere execution of the same unless any document as contemplated under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is executed and is got registered under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The decision of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. also deprecates the transfer of immovable property through sale agreement, general power of attorney and will instead of registered conveyance deed.
Delhi District Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahender Kumar vs . Amar Singh on 26 September, 2019

25) The reference to the aforesaid judgement show that unless there is a proper registered sale deed, title of an immovable property does not pass. It has been categorically laid down in Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 that "immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of 'GPA sales' or 'SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property."
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Yamin vs Sh. Rahisuddin on 3 March, 2020

In this regard, reference is craved to the judgments in Gurcharan Singh Chadda v The B.D.O. (Gaon Sabha Mundka) & Anr., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12271, Haji Abdul Mateen (Deceased) through LRs v Rattan Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12268 and Saroj Aggarwal v Mehar Singh & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 120221, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, relying upon Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v State of Haryana and Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656 has categorically held that there cannot be any transfer of title/ownership through agreement to sell, power of attorney, receipt, possession letter etc. Further reliance is placed on Wg. Cdr. (Retd.)
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next