Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Section 3 in The Partition Act, 1893 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sardar Singh vs Smt. Krishna Devi And Another on 21 November, 1990
Needless to add that much prior to making submissions, the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant had already been reversed by Supreme Court in Sardar Singh v. Krishna Devi and Anr., . The Supreme Court held:-
Section 2 in The Partition Act, 1893 [Entire Act]
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 15 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Capt. (Now Major) Ashok Kshyap vs Mrs. Sudha Vasisht & Anr on 4 February, 1987
In Captain (Now Major) Ashok Kshyap v. Mrs. Sudha Vasisht and Anr., while reversing the decision of this Court dated 16-5-1986 on the question whether the award therein required to be compulsorily registered, the Apex Court held that Section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act enjoins that any non-testimony instrument, which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or future any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property, should be registered. Analysing the award, the Supreme Court held that the award did not create any right in immovable property, therefore, it was not required to be compulsorily registered. The award in that case had declared the shares of the parties by saying: -