Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.52 seconds)Section 109 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
Mohar Singh (Dead By Lrs.) vs Devi Charan & Others on 9 May, 1988
"7. The trial court has held that Smt. Shivmurti Devi had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in September, 1990. This finding has not been assailed before this court. As such, even if for argument sake, the agreement for sale (Paper No. 47-Ga) and the possession memo (Paper No. 48-Ga) are ignored from consideration, it would have no effect on the title of the plaintiff-respondent over the demised premises. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohar Singh v. Devi Charan that in view of section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the attornment takes place by operation of law. There is no need of consensual attornment.
Pramod Kumar Jaiswal And Others vs Bibi Husn Bano & Ors on 3 May, 2005
Same view has been taken by a three Judges bench judgment in Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v. Bibi Husn Bano.
Sk.Sattar Sk.Mohd.Choudhari vs Gundappa Amabadas Bukate on 11 October, 1996
He also submitted that by perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioners, it is also clear that they had full knowledge about both the facts that earlier Smt. Shanti Devi was the landlady and the plaintiff-respondent had purchased the said house in question after taking loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioners-defendant, therefore, in light of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as well as law laid down by Apex Court and this Court, tenancy is established between the petitioners and respondents, therefore, no separate agreement is required and under such facts, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.