Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Sk. Golam Lalchnad vs Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu ... on 12 December, 2022

Gautam Nag Sarkar vs Manish Agarwal on 10 June, 2025

8. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Arun Raisurana v. Jamshedpur Property Developers Private Limited (supra) is concerned, the ratio decided in Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes and others (supra) is not considered in that case and in view of that, the facts of that case is distinguishable.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Ram Lal(Dead) And 5 Others vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi And Another on 13 February, 2025

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of SK. Golam Lalchand Vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes and Others (Supra), has held that the suit property which is undivided is left with the co-owners to proceed in accordance with law to get their shares determined and demarcated before making a transfer. It is of no assistance to learned counsel for the respondent.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Ramesh S vs Poongodi S on 19 September, 2024

22. At this stage it is necessary to quote the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 676), wherein it is held that held that a co-owner of a non-partitioned property cannot transfer the entire property without getting his share determined and demarcated to bind the other co- owners. The Supreme Court stated that the co-owner alone was not competent to execute a sale of the entire property in favour of the appellant that too without its partition and the said sale deed executed by the co owner though in accordance with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be a valid document to the extent of the share of O.S. No.3259/2023 30 co owner in the property and defendant/ appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand is free to take remedies to claim appropriate relief either by suit of partition or by suit of compensation and damages against Brij Mohan, Consequently, the Court held that the suit property which is undivided is left with the co-owners to proceed in accordance with law to get their shares determined and demarcated before making a transfer. Therefore drawing inspiration from the above judgment it can be concluded that even in the instant case the gift deed at Ex.P4 is no doubt valid to the extent of half share of the mother of the plaintiff and is thus in accordance with Section 44 of the Transfer of property Act but the said document cannot be given effect to in the absence of partition between the co owners of the property. Admittedly on the death of the father of the plaintiff in 2013, the plaintiff and defendants had succeeded to the half share of the property left behind by their father and such the mother of the plaintiff could O.S. No.3259/2023 31 have sought consent of these persons before executing the Gift deed. The mother of the plaintiff was no doubt entitled to execute gift deed or other document transferring her undivided right in favour of any person and as such the second defendant is entitled to the ½ share of his mother in the suit property . The mother of the plaintiff did not have right to execute the gift deed in favour of the defendant No.2 with out partition of property by metes and bounds or without the consent of the other co-owners of the property and thus the transfer of half share in the suit property is subject to the partition of the suit property by metes and bounds.
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Jaladhija Educational Society And ... vs Poloju Lakshmi on 23 October, 2024

In a recent landmark decision Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw & others 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that third parties affected by invalid sale deeds are not obligated to formally seek their cancellation. The argument has been noted only to be rejected for the simple reason that Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 uses the word 'may' for getting declared the instrument as void which is not imperative in every case, more particularly when the person is not a party to such an instrument. Even on perusal of the plaint, the plaintiff has 6 Civil Appeal No. 4177 of 2024 decided on 10.09.2024 21 neither sought for any such relief of cancellation of Exs.A5 to A7 nor has the trial Court passed any remarks adverse to the interest of defendants on validity of Exs.A5 to A7. Thus, the above said contention is untenable.
Telangana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next