Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.47 seconds)
Rahul Arora vs Ashok Chadha on 11 January, 2022 cites

Ambica Prasad vs Md. Alam And Anr on 8 April, 2015

"27. As a matter of fact, the Appellants-Defendants have not questioned the validity of the sale deed in RSA 238/2019 Page 14 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:16.01.2022 21:14:09 favour of the Respondents-Plaintiffs. The title in the property having vested in Zamir Ahmad, who, in turn, transferred it to the Plaintiff (Respondents) by way of a sale deed. It is not open to the Appellants Defendants to question the ownership of the Respondents-Plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises. The factum which impressed the trial court and the first appellate court to hold that the gift deed in favour of Zamir Ahmad was invalid, namely, that donor (Akhtari Begum) did not request the tenant (Defendant) to attorn to the donee (Plaintiff), is also devoid of substance. For, this Court in the case of Ambica Prasad v. Mohd. Alam and Anr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 74 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Hajee K. Assainar & Co. vs Chacko Joseph on 9 December, 1983

11.6 Similar proposition has been held by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case M/S Hajee K. Assainar & Co, Vs Chacko Joseph AIR 1984 Kerala 113. 11.7 In case Ambica Prasad Vs Mohammad Alam and another 2015(3) CU 357 S.C. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is manifest that after the transfer of lessor's right in favour of the transferee, the latter gets all rights and liabilities of the lessor in respect of subsisting tenancy. The Section does not insist that transfer will take effect only when the tenant attorns. It is well settled that a transferee of the landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor RSA 238/2019 Page 13 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:16.01.2022 21:14:09 landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord can take effect only if the-tenant attorns to him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to confer validity of the transfer of the landlord's rights, Since attornment by the tenant is not required, a notice under Section 106 in terms of the old terms of lease by the transferor landlord would be proper and so also the suit for ejectment.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Mohan Lal (Deceased) Throughhis Lrs. ... vs Mirza Abdul Gaffar & Anr on 12 December, 1995

(iii) In so far as the issue of adverse possession is concerned, it is clear that adverse possession is a defence which would have to be taken categorically and the party taking the said defence would have to be in possession of the property in a manner which is hostile to the owner. It is the settled position in law that plea relating to title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the later does not operate until the former is renounced as has been consistently held by the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) SCC 639; L.N. Aswathama v. P. Prakash (2009) 13 SCC 229; Prabhakar Gones Prabhu v. Sardarchandra Suria in Civil Appeal No. 10501-10502 of 2014 decided on 21st August 2019.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 215 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next