Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.40 seconds)The Registration Act, 1908
Kanhialal Sarda And Anr. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 19 September, 1979
Kanhialal's case cited by the learned counsel for the third respondent prohibits bilateral proceedings relating to the Will under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, when the Will has not been probated. This issue is not relevant in the present case. In my view, the third respondent has missed the real point in issue in this connection. The arbitrators have not acted erroneously in referring to the distribution of assets by the parties. In fact, the arbitrators have not distributed the assets according to the Will and in fact they have not distributed the asscis at all. The parlies themselves had distributed the assets and have also given effect to the said distribution. The arbitrators have only referred to this fact in the award. They have neither given effect to the Will nor distributed the assets in accordance therewith.
Aditya Kumar De Chowdhury vs Narayandas De Chowdhury on 25 March, 1970
Aditya Kumar's case cited by the learned counsel for the third respondent deals with the question of registration of an award, which creates or extinguishes the right for an immovable property. It is not in dispute that the award is registr-able, where a right in an immovable property is created in the said case, the reference to arbitration was for effecting partition of a property and the Court held that an award which effects a partition on its own, is registrable. Where an award merely refers to a partition which had already taken place, the award does not create right by itself and such an award is not registrable.
Lachhman Dass vs Ram Lal & Anr on 30 March, 1989
Lachhman Dass's case referred to by the learned counsel for the third respondent is also not applicable to the facts of the present case and is not relevant. It is no doubt true that the proposition of !aw laid down therein, cannot at all be decided, the ratio of the case was based on the facts therein. There was a clear transfer of property in immovable property from A to B under the award. On tho.se facts, the Honourable Supreme Court found that a right in an immovable property was created in favour of one of the parties by the award and hence the award was registrable. The facts are thus" totally different in that case. The fact of the present case have been considered in detail in the paragraphs above. In the instant case, I do not find any creation or exinclion of any interest in the immovable property in favour of any of the parties herein and hence, it does not require registration under the Act.
Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi, Etc vs Narsingsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi, Etc on 10 February, 1961
ln Kashinatsha's case , the Supreme Court held as follows (at p. 1084 of AIR) :
Nitya Ranjan Chatterjee vs Chitta Ranjan Catterjee And Others on 15 March, 1990
In Nitya Ranjan Chat-terjee's case , a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held as under (at p. 315 of AIR):
Raj Kumar Dey And Others vs Tarapada Dey And Others on 14 September, 1987
As held above, the award in question does not create or extinguish any right in favour of any of the parties in the proceedings, this point also need not be considered. As final statement, Mr. Ramachandran has eontended that the award, assuming without conceding is registerable, the time during which the award was in Court has got to be excluded and in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that the award is to be registered, this Court might be pleased to return the award directing the registration thereof, if so required, after excluding the whole period, during which the award was in Court in computing the four months' period allowed for registration. The decision reported in Raj Kumar v. Tarapada, was relied on for this purpose. In view of my finding that the award does not require registration, this question also does nol arise for consideration,
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bank Of Baroda, Represented By Its ... vs Mahendra Dadha And Two Ors. on 18 June, 1982
Thus, it is soon how the arbitrators have distributed the assets as per the directions contained in the Will of late L. Milapchand Dadha and the said distribution was accepted by the parties herein. That apart all the parties herein have also relied on the Will of late L. Milapchand Dadha to evict Bank of Baroda, the erstwhile tenant of premises No. 363, Mint Street, which is now known as Dadha Complex. It is relevant at this stage to refer to the decision rendered by this Court in Bank of Baroda v. Mahendra Dadha (C.R.P. No. 220 of 1982, dated 18th June, 1982 Reported in (1982)95 Mad LW 337. The civil revision petition was preferred by Bank of Baroda against Mahendra Dadha and two others (respondents 1 to 3 in O.P. No. 205 of 1990). The respondents herein filed a petition for eviction of Bank of Baroda from a non-residential building let out to it on the ground of bona fide requirements for their own purpose. They claimed to be the owners of the building as heirs of the deceased owner, their father. The tenant relying on a reference in the correspondence between the parties to a Will left by the deceased under which the respondents claimed to be entitled to the property pleaded that without probating the will the respondent could not evict the petitioner/ tenant. It was also found that the bank had all along been paying rent to one of the several heirs-respondents under authorisation by all the heirs. Ratnavel Pandian, J. (as he then was), overruling the objections of the tenant, Bank of Baroda in regard to its objection to the maintainability of the petition for eviction based on S. 211 of the Indian Succession Act, dismissed the civil revision petition by holding that the tenant was not justified in contending that the eviction petition filed by the landlords was not maintainable. In fact, the learned Judge has found as under:--