Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Secretary Of State For India In Council vs A.H. Forbes on 18 June, 1912
earlier case of the Secretary of State v. A. H. Forbes (C) to which we have already referred to. In a later case of Srish Chandra v. Doa Mahommad, AIR 1939 Cal 77 (P), the same principle was again followed.
Secretary Of State For India In Council vs Digambar Nanda And Ors. on 27 August, 1917
In the case of Secretary of State v. Digambar Nanda (O), it was held by Mukherjee J. that where there is a covenant for renewal of the land, the defendant has an option of refusal or otherwise of the renewal itself. This principle' was also laid down in the.
Section 40 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Hemanta Kumari Debi vs Sefatulla Biswas on 22 July, 1932
The defence taken was that he was not liable to be evicted as the plaintiff had agreed by the terms of the old lease to give him an option of renewal of the lease. A few days before the expiry of the period of the lease, a notice had been sent by the defendant to the plaintiff stating that he was prepared to take a fresh lease in accordance with the terms of the agreement as to renewal. The notice was however ignored and the suit was brought. On these facts it was held that under the terms of the lease, an option of renewal was given to the lessee and as he had expressed his intention to take the lease, it was not open to the plaintiff to bring a suit for ejectment. Reliance was placed by this Court on a Calcutta case reported in Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Sefatulla Biswas, AIR 1933 Cal 477 (B).
The Transfer Of Property (Amendment) Act, 2002
Radha Kamal vs Puri Municipality And Ors. on 23 September, 1953
9. The covenant in the lease for the renewal is a covenant running with the land and can be given effect to. This has been held in the case of Midnapore Zemindary Co. v. Ishan Chandra, AIR 1924 Cal 346 (1) (E), and in the case of 16 Cal LJ 217 (C), referred to earlier by us and in the case of Radha Kamal v. Puri Municipality, AIR 1954 Orissa 110 (F). Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act also provides that where a third person is entitled to the benefit of an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of immoveable property, but not amounting to an interest therein or easement thereon, such right or obligation may be enforced against a transferee with notice thereof or a gratuitous transferee of the property affected thereby, but not against a transferee for consideration and without notice of the right or obligation, nor against such property in his hands.
G.F.C. Ariff vs Rai Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur on 23 January, 1931
11. Reliance was then placed on the case of G.H.C. Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur, AIR 1931 PC 79 (L). It was held in this case reversing the decision of the Calcutta High Court that the doctrine of part performance was not applicable to India and that the appellant in that case was not entitled to succeed neither having any equitable principle nor on the basis of the doctrine of part performance. The facts of that case were entirely different.