Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 67 (0.33 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
2025.05.31
16:27:39 +0530
not documents of transfer and as such the
right title and interest of an immovable
property do not stand transferred by mere
execution of the same unless any document
as contemplated under Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is executed
and is got registered under Section 17 of the
Indian Registration Act, 1908. 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 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 102 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nathu Ram Jain vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 21 September, 2010
25. 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."
P. Kishore Kumar vs Vittal K Patkar on 11 October, 2023
35. It is a settled law that no one can sell a better title than he himself has. A buyer's title would be subject to the same defect as the seller's if the seller's title is also defective. This rule simply implies that the buyer's title cannot be better than the seller's title. 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.