Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Habiba Khatoon vs Ubaidul Huq & Ors on 5 August, 1997

Smt. Anusaya W/O Bajrang And Ors. vs Smt. Raghunath Shankar Rahate And Ors. on 21 July, 2000

11. With reference to the submission of Mr. Thorat that the Appellant No. 1 did not have the present right to enter into the agreement of reconveyance [grounds (c) and (d) of Appeal], Mr. Shah drew my attention to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Habiba Khatoon v. Ubaidul Haq wherein even the assignee of the purchaser was held to be having the right of reconveyance. In the present case, the agreement of sale and agreement of reconveyance were entered into on the same day and they operate as the consideration for each other. Therefore the submission was that it cannot be said that there was any absence of consideration when the agreement of reconveyance was entered into or that no consideration was received on that date. In our case, it was a case of a set of promise and counter-promise, each forming consideration for each other between the parties who were directly concerned in the transaction. Mr. Shah submitted that reference to Sections 5 and 54 of tin- Transfer of Property Act by Mr. Thorat was misconceived inasmuch as when Section 5 defines the concept of transfer, it specifically provides that transfer can be in present or in future.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Jayeshkumar Mathurbai Patel vs Mukeshbhai Vershibhai Desai on 27 April, 2022

"14. This legal position is also examined by the Suprme Court in Habiba Khatoon v. Ubaidul Huq AIR 1997 SC 3326 holding that normally any interest in a contract could be assigned to any representative-in-interest who also can enforce the specific performance of the contract against the contracting party. However, if the terms of the contract, expressly or by necessary implication, prohibited the beneficiary from tranferring his contractual interest to third parties, then only such an assignee cannot sue for specific performance."
Gujarat High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 2 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Patel Dineshbhai Mohanbhai vs Decd. Naranbhai Ramdas Thro' Legal ... on 23 September, 2004

44. Mr. A.J. Patel has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Habiba Khatoon v. Ubaidul Haq and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 3236. In that case, question was regarding whether the beneficiaries under an agreement got personal right and whether assignment by beneficiaries of such rights to stranger is prohibited. It has been held by the Supreme Court that agreement of reconveyance could not be interpreted as conferring personal right of reconveyance on son of the original vendor if his mother - original vendor, the first beneficiary under the Agreement of repurchase died within that period merely on basis of term 'only' employed by the document. The word 'only' signified a situation wherein on the death of original vendor within three years of the Agreement one of her heirs, namely, her son and his own children as contra-distinguished with other heirs of original vendor were given a priority right to enforce their claim to repurchase the suit house. With a view to exclude the other heirs of original vendor from the scheme of priorities that the word 'only' was used in the document.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - P Majmudar - Full Document

K. Gopalasamy Chetty, K. ... vs Selliamman Koil Co-Op. House Site ... on 9 April, 2002

33. Learned counsel appearing for respondents relied on the decision in Habibhu Khatoon v. Ubaidul Huq, , in support of his submission that a stranger can sustain the suit for specific performance of the agreement, as the agreement was for their benefit, and so they can invoke Sec. 53-A of the Act as a defence in this case. But the said decision deals with the agreement of reconveyance which was assigned in favour of third party to the agreement. The Apex Court in the said decision held that in the absence of any prohibition, such assignment is valid, and the stranger can enforce the said rights. But, in the present case, the facts are different. No document is produced to show that the rights arise under the agreement have been assigned, even if it is possible, and, in the absence of any such plea or evidence, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Palaniammal vs K.R.C. Anbalagan on 18 February, 2012

(v) 1997(7) SCC 452 (Habiba Khatoon v. Ubadul Huq and others) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that normally any interest in the contract could be assigned to any representative-in-interest who also can enforce the specific performance of the contract against the contracting party. However, if the terms of the contract, expressly, or by necessary implication, prohibited the beneficiary from transferring his contactual interest to third parties, then only such an assignee cannot sue for specific performance. Generally speaking, the benefits of the contract of repurchase must be assignable, unless the terms of the contract are such as to show that the rights of repurchase is personal to the vendor.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 4 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

Ashokkumar Jayantilal Sheth Thro'Poa ... vs Heirs Of Deceased Narmadaben Widow Of ... on 31 July, 2014

8.3 In Habiba Khatun (supra), relied on by learned advocate for the appellant, reiterating the principle and holding after interpreting the terms of the agreement before it, that it was not conferring personal right of reconveyance and the assignment of right to repurchase by son of the original vendor to the stranger plaintiff was valid, observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Kapilaben vs Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through ... on 25 November, 2019

and Others , (2003) 12 SCC 160, Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra and Others, AIR 1967 SC 744 and Habiba Khatoon v. Ubaidul Huq and others, (1997) 7 SCC 452 to argue that no implied prohibition can be read into the 1986 agreement against assignability of the interest therein. The requirement of consent of the other party for assignment under Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act is only applicable in cases where the obligation is of a personal nature or where there is an express bar in the contract prohibiting such assignment of interest. Further, that in any case, the original owner Naranbhai Patel’s conduct in 16 arranging for development permissions and consenting to publication of advertisement regarding development of housing scheme in the suit property shows that there was implied consent for assignment of rights under the 1986 agreement in favour of Respondent Nos. 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document
1   2 Next