Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
18. It is a trite law nemo dat quod non habet i.e. no one can pass a better
title than he himself has. In the present case to prove his ownership,
the plaintiff was required to prove not only the valid title
documents executed by previous owners in his favour but also the
fact that the previous owner was having the proper, legal and valid
title over the suit plot at the time of entering into sale transaction
with the plaintiff. Though, the law is clear that any sale transaction
entered into before the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case
title Suraj Lamp v. State of Haryana 2011 (183) DLT 1, shall not be
affected by the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court and it has
been further explained by Hon'ble Hgh Court of Delhi in various
judgments explaining the ratio of Suraj Lamp (Supra) that though a
person does not become owner in classical sense on the basis of
SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 18 of 22
Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
Section 41 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 17 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
1