Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.92 seconds)

Vinod Kumar & Anr. vs Ajit Singh on 1 October, 2013

11. However, on behalf of the petitioner, reliance is placed in Gomuguntla Leela Krishna Murtghy v. Kancherla Koteswaramma and another1 and judgment of High court of Delhi in Vinod Kumar & another vs Ajit Singh, in I.A.No. 20617/2012 in CS (OS) 2661/2012, dated 01.10.2013, in respect of application of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act and Article-23A of Schedule 1A of Indian Stamp Act (Delhi Amendment Act, 2001).
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Banguru Ramathulasamma vs Yedem Masthan Reddy And Ors. on 10 August, 1998

12. However, it is pointed out for the respondents that recitals of this possessory agreement for sale an important in deciding its 1 .2019(5) ALD 2 (AP) MVR,J CRP.No.4910 OF 2016 4 nature. Thus, it is contended that it is an out and out sale deed, whereby right, title and interest have been conveyed to the purchaser. Therefore, according to the respondent, it is inadmissible in evidence in terms of Section 17(i)(b) of the Registration Act. Thus, it is contended that it cannot merely be treated as an agreement for sale coupled with delivery of possession. Reliance is placed in this context in Banguru Ramathulasamma vs. Yedem Masthan Reddy and others 1998(4) ALT 796.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - R B Reddy - Full Document

Gomuguntla Leela Krishna Murthy vs Kancherla Koteswaramma And Another on 24 June, 2019

11. However, on behalf of the petitioner, reliance is placed in Gomuguntla Leela Krishna Murtghy v. Kancherla Koteswaramma and another1 and judgment of High court of Delhi in Vinod Kumar & another vs Ajit Singh, in I.A.No. 20617/2012 in CS (OS) 2661/2012, dated 01.10.2013, in respect of application of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act and Article-23A of Schedule 1A of Indian Stamp Act (Delhi Amendment Act, 2001).
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - T Rajani - Full Document
1   2 Next