Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Soni Lalji Jetha & Ors vs Soni Kalidas Devchand & Ors on 14 October, 1966

Rajata Trust vs Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 20 June, 1991

In Soni Lalji Jetha v. Soni Kalidas Devchand, , the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that a contract for sale of immovable property, while it did not create interest in immovable property, created a personal obligation of a fiduciary character which could be enforced by a suit for specific performance not only against the vendor but also against a purchaser for consideration with notice.
Karnataka High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 14 - S Mohan - Full Document

Shailendra Bhandari, Mumbai vs Acit Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai on 21 January, 2021

In Soni Lalji Jetha v. Soni Kalidas Davchand AIR 1967 SC 978, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that a contract for sale of immovable property, while it did not create interest in immovable property, created a personal obligation of a fiduciary character which could be enforced by a suit for specific performance not only against the vendor but also against a purchaser for consideration with notice.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Girish P. Rupani, Mumbai vs Acit 23(1), Mumbai on 10 April, 2019

In Soni Lalji Jetha v. Soni Kalidas Davchand AIR 1967 SC 978, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that a contract for sale of immovable property, while it did not create interest in immovable property, created a personal obligation of a fiduciary character which could be enforced by a suit for specific performance not only against the vendor but also against a purchaser for consideration with notice.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P. Ramasubbamma vs V. Vijayalakshmi on 11 April, 2022

3.2 It is further submitted that even the High Court ought to have appreciated that apart from the fact that original defendant No. 1 admitted the execution of the agreement 7 and receipt of payment of substantial advance amount, original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 did not even enter into the witness box. It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated and considered the fact that the original of power of attorney dated 28.01.1997 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, was handed over to the plaintiff at the time of execution of agreement to sell, which was produced by the plaintiff in the present suit as exhibit P6. 3.3 It is further submitted that the High Court has also erred in holding that it was necessary for the plaintiff to seek cancellation of sale deeds dated 03.05.2010 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4, respectively. It is submitted that in a suit for specific performance it is not necessary for the agreement holder to seek cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of a subsequent purchaser and it is sufficient to implead the subsequent purchaser in the suit and seek relief of specific performance against original owner and also seek direction to the subsequent purchaser to join in the 8 execution of the sale deed in order to completely convey title to the agreement holder. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Lala Durga Parsad and Anr. Vs. Lala Deep Chand and Ors., 1954 SCR 360: AIR 1954 SC 75, Soni Lalji Jetha & Ors. Vs. Soni Kalidas Devchand & Ors., (1967) 1 SCR 873: AIR 1967 SC 978, R.C. Chandiok & Anr. Vs. Chuni Lal Sabharwal & Ors. (1970) 3 SCC 140: AIR 1971 SC 1238, Dwarka Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. Harikant Prasad Singh & Ors., (1973) 1 SCC 179 and Rathnavathi & Anr. Vs. Kavitha Ganashamdas, (2015) 5 SCC 223.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 23 - M R Shah - Full Document

Vincent vs Housing & Urban Development ... on 17 January, 2003

The learned counsel for the first respondent has vehemently argued that even if the petitioners are impleaded, they will not be in a position to resist the claim of HUDCO and their only claim is under an agreement for sale. It is argued that an agreement for sale will not confer the petitioners any right, title or interest over the property or the flats. It is pointed out that in view of the provisions contained in S. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act a person claiming under the sale agreement will not get any right. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the decisions reported in Ram Baran v. Ram Mohit (AIR 1967 SC 744), Lalji Jetha v. Kalidas (AIR 1967 SC 978) and Bai Dosabai v. Mathurdas (AIR 1980 SC 1334) has argued that even though an agreement for sale will not confer any title, the agreement to sale will create an interest in the land in favour of the intending purchaser and that interest is annexed to the land. I am of the view it is not at all necessary to enter into any finding on the disputed questions of facts in this proceeding. Further the first respondent has got a case that the remedy available to the petitioners is to approach a civil court and not the Debt Recovery Tribunal. So I leave the matters open to be decided by the appropriate authority in proper proceedings.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K P Nair - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar Srivastava vs Xviiith Additional District Judge, ... on 4 March, 1998

The ratio decided in the case of Soni Lalji Jetha (supra) was relied upon in the case of Keshavlal Laxmandas Patel (supra), in the said case such a right arising out of contract of sale was held to be an obligation within the meaning of Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such there was a fiduciary relationship between the vendor and the person who had agreed to purchase the property and thus he is a trustee within the meaning of Section 91 of the Trust Act and as such the said right is enforceable under Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act. The proposition is well-settled. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into this question and it is to be gone into at the time of trial but at the same time, it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable as framed at this stage. Even if it is held that the suit appears to be not maintainable, still then such a finding should be treated to be a tentative finding for the purpose of deciding the injunction application and in no way shall have any impact on the decision in the suit, which should be given on merits without being influenced by any observation made in the appellate order or in this order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 35 - D K Seth - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Vijay Flexible Containers on 13 September, 1989

In Soni Lalji Jetha v. Soni Kalidas Devchand, , the Supreme court came to the conclusion that a contract for sale of immovable property, while it did not create interest in immovable property, created a personal obligation of a fiduciary character which could be enforced by a suit for specific performance not only against the vendor but also against a purchaser for consideration with notice.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 61 - S P Bharucha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next