Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)Section 6 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Jumma Masjid, Mercara vs Kodimaniandra Deviah on 11 January, 1962
But on declaration that the sale is void, in the eye of law the contract is no nest to the extent of the share of the minor from its inception. The second limb of Section 43 is that the contract must be a subsisting one at the time of the claim. A void contract is no contract in the eye of law and was never in existence so the 2nd limb of Section 43 of is not satisfied. The ratio of this Court in Jumma Masjid's case 1962 AIR SC 847 is thus:
Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
Jhulan Prasad vs Ram Raj Prasad And Ors. on 14 March, 1978
3. The contention for the appellant is that in view of the finding that Harbans Kaur had succeeded by operation of law, the appellant is entitled to the interest acquired by Harbans Kaur by operation of Section 43 of the Act and the High Court has misapplied the ratio of decisions of this Court in Jumma Masjid, Mercana v. Kodimaniandra Deviah and Ors. and the decision of the Patna High Court in Jhulan Prasad v. Ram Raj Prasad and Ors. . Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act provides thus:
1