Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Dada Vaku Nikam vs Bahiru Hingu Nikam on 20 July, 1927

Balkrishna S/O Bhagwanji Lohi ... ... vs Prakash S/O Sheshrao Lohi on 10 January, 2014

24. The principle laid down in the said cases of Bhagwan Kaur and Dada (supra) has been stated by me earlier and even on its basis, I do not think that the claim of the defendants that the suit house was received by them in exchange for Mainabai's house given to Sheshrao can be said to have been established in this case. The reason is that to seek any application of this principle of law, the defendants would be required to prove that they were in possession of the suit house at the time when the oral exchange took place. The evidence brought on record by them shows the position to be otherwise. The evidence of defendant no. 1 Balkrishna (Ex.52) is relevant in this regard. He has stated in paragraph 2 that in the year 1954 there was exchange of properties between himself ::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:08:24 ::: 19 and Sheshrao on the basis of an oral agreement. He also states that in addition to giving of house of Mainabai to Sheshrao, he had paid Rs.850/- to Sheshrao. This would show that basically this transaction was not purely that of an exchange, as defined under Section 118 of T.P. Act but was also accompanied by a consideration in terms of money and, therefore, it was a transfer of ownership partly in exchange for a price and partly in exchange for ownership of one thing for the ownership of another. Such transaction would also fall within the definition of "sale"
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document

Dcm Ltd. vs Dda on 20 December, 2023

111. Similarly in the case of Dada Vaku Nikam vs Bahiru Hingu Nikam (1927) 29 BOMLR 1419, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court observed that in cases where there has been an actual exchange of land in pursuance of an oral agreement and the parties have remained in possession ever since that date without there being any question raised, the doctrine of part performance applies and, therefore, bar under Section 54 of TPA is removed.
Delhi High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

S N Raja vs Ramaiah on 22 February, 2024

He also relied upon the Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Dada Paku Nikam (supra) to contend where in pursuance of an oral agreement there has been an actual exchange of land and parties have remained in possession ever since that date without any question being raised the doctrine of part performance applies and therefore bar under Section 54 of Transfer of 25 Property Act in reality is removed. He further referred to Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ramachandra and others and the Judgment of High Court of Bombay in the case of Dasharath Narayan Shinde and others to contend that immovable property value of which is less than 100/-, the transfer can be either by registered instrument or by delivery of property.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Tek Chand vs Of on 8 December, 2016

the contestants thereat stood executed nor obviously it stood registered, though contradistinctively hereat a statutory mandate is cast upon the executants of Ex. DA for it to hold of completeness of legal form also for it to complete the vestment of title vis-a-vs its respective executants, to compulsorily register it, whereas, it standing evidently not rt registered may yet not denude its sanctity qua its thereunder vesting title respectively upon its executants, conspicuously, when in a pronouncement recorded by the Bombay High Court in Dada Vaku Nikam's case supra reported in AIR 1927, Bombay, 627, the latter Court therein invoking qua also an oral agreement of exchange the doctrine of part performance, in sequel whereof, this Court likewise when evidently hereat Ex. DA for reasons aforestated stands acted upon by the parties thereto, stands constrained to conclude qua the benefit of the doctrine of part performance standing available to be derived by the defendant/appellant.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Thakur - Full Document
1