cites: 145117828

Asha M. Jain vs The Canara Bank And Ors. on 15 October, 2001

(E) A mere possession of immovable property, even if accompanied with GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc., does not constitute title to the immovable property. Reference, if any required in this regard can be made to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656 setting aside the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Asha M Jain Vs. Canara Bank (2001) 94 DLT 841.

Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 399 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Section 356 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 5508

The Limitation Act, 1963

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 47361

Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 193147

Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 73191

Sunil Kapoor vs Himmat Singh & Ors on 22 September, 2008

19. Appellant's counsel relied on the judgment of Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat Singh, 167 (2010) DLT 806 in support of his arguments. This judgment was rendered in a different context. This judgment holds that doctrine of part performance can be of no avail in the absence of a registered agreement to sell and that an agreement purchasertenant cannot avoid his ejectment by a landlord on the plea of a mere agreement to sell and his status would continue to remain to be that of a tenant. This judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.

Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 109 - H Kohli - Full Document