Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
E.S. Kasim Marakkayar And Ors. vs P.R.M.K. Muhammad Abdul Rahiman ... on 25 January, 1944 cites

Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi vs Midnapur Zemindari Company Ltd. on 6 July, 1914

Debi v. Midnapore Zamindari Co. ('19) 6 A.I.R. 1919 P.C. 79 we should have felt no difficulty in accepting the argument for the appellants. Sub-section (2) of Section 17, Registration Act, only exempts decrees and orders which fall within Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1). The clause which relates to leases is Clause (d). A lease is, of course, a non-testamentary instrument which operates to create a right in immovable property; but inasmuch as leases are dealt with separately in a later clause the rules of construction of statutes preclude the respondent calling in aid Clause (b).
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 115 - Full Document

Atul Krishna Bose And Ors. vs Zahed Mondal And Ors. on 12 August, 1940

462 and Atul Krishna v. Zahed Mondal ('41) 28 A.I.R. 1941 Cal. 102. The first of these cases was a suit between the purchaser and the seller of ryoti land. It was settled by a solenama under which the vendor took a permanent tenancy from the vendee and continued in possession. Subsequently the buyer sued to recover possession. He averred that the solenama could not be given effect to as it had not been registered. It was held that as the solenama created a lease of immovable property it could not be admitted in evidence as it had not been registered. Rankin C.J., with whom Mitter J. agreed, said:
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1