Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.27 seconds)

Satish Kumar Gupta vs Shanti Swaroop Gupta And Ors on 5 July, 2018

Learned Trial Court further held that the family settlement dt. 17.10.1979 was of no consequence as the property had been purchased in defendant's name. It was held that if one party had absolute title in his favour and the other party had no interest therein, then any title or interest in the said property could only be transferred by execution of a sale deed as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act. Thus, the said family agreement dt. 17.10.1979 could not create any right in plaintiff's favour. It was reasoned that the said family agreement only provided that the defendant would transfer first floor of the property to the plaintiff. Thus, learned Trial Court was of the view that plaintiff could not claim any right, title or interest in the property on the basis of the said agreement without suing for specific performance of the agreement. It was also observed that the mere fact that defendant had executed GPA in plaintiff's favour and that plaintiff had been occupying the property since inception conferred no title in him in the property in question. Furthermore, learned Trial Court noted that plaintiff did not plead the source of purchase money; that it is only pleaded that plaintiff contributed to the purchase of land, without specifying as to how it was done, RCA DJ No. 167/19 Dr. Hari Om Gupta v. Krishan Garg Page 6 of 15 especially when he was a minor at the relevant time.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Sri Marcel Martins vs M. Printer & Ors on 27 April, 2012

It will be fruitful to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Marcel Martins Vs. M printer And Ors (2012)5 SCC 342. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised section 4(3)(b) as an exception to prohibition of right to recover Benami Property. It was held "44. The cumulative effect of the above circumstances when seen in the light of the substantial amount paid by late Shri C.F. Martins, the father of the RCA DJ No. 167/19 Dr. Hari Om Gupta v. Krishan Garg Page 10 of 15 parties, thus puts the appellant in a fiduciary capacity vis­à­vis the said four persons. Such being the case the transaction is completely saved from the mischief of Section 4 of the Act by reason of the same falling under Sub­section 3(b) of Section 4. The suit filed by the respondents was not, therefore, barred by the Act as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The view taken by the High Court to that effect is affirmed though for slightly different reasons".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 83 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Pawan Kumar vs Babulal Since Deceased Through Lrs on 2 April, 2019

In Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Pawan Kumar Vs Babulal (2019) 4 SCC 367 the question the plea whether the Suit is barred under section 4 of the Act or not is not the subject matter of assessment at the stage when application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC was taken up for consideration. Thus, it is required to be ascertained whether there exists fiduciary relation between the parties, which can only be done after appreciation of facts and evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 47 - U U Lalit - Full Document

K.L. Garg vs Rajesh Garg & Ors. on 24 January, 2013

Further, the judgments Satish Kumar v. Shanti Swaroop Gupta, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9651 an K.L. Garg Vs. Rajesh Garg & Ors relied upon the Ld. Trial Court are not applicable on the set of facts of the instant lis and are not therefore applicable. In these judgments the plaintiff (s) had contributed in the purchase of the property whereas in the given situation the plaintiff has stated to have jointly purchased the suit property with his elder brother. Plaintiff is claiming to have equal share in the property which he jointly purchased with his elder brother and this fact is duly acknowledged by the defendant in agreement dt. 17.10.1979. In the given situation the plaintiff is also claiming to be a minor which is not the situation in the aforesaid judgments.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next