Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 65 (0.47 seconds)Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
The decision
of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp &
Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana &
Anr. also deprecates the transfer of
immovable property through sale agreement,
general power of attorney and will instead of
registered conveyance deed.
Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nathu Ram Jain vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 21 September, 2010
26. It is relevant to mention that the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in Nathu Ram vs DDA (Supra) was recently reiterated
and referred to by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Udaiveer & Ors.
vs Union Of India & Ors. W.P. (C) 2505/2023 decided on 3
February, 2025, whereby, it was held that: "Therefore, the mere
mention in some years of khasra girdawari showing possession,
cannot by itself confer ownership and title in respect of such
precious land."
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 102 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
P. Kishore Kumar vs Vittal K Patkar on 11 October, 2023
2025.05.31
16:42:59 +0530
Same is enshrined in Section 27 of Sale of Goods Act. The legal
maxim Nemo dat quod non habet also means "no one gives what
he doesn't have". Thus, when Sh. Baha-ud-din had no title of the
suit property he can't transfer a better title to the plaintiff (that too
by way of unregistered agreement to sell or unregistered General
power of attorney). The said principle also finds mention in the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Kishore Kumar vs
Vittal K. Patkar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999, which has been
discussed above in great detail.