A.S. Sulochana vs C. Dharmalingam on 28 November, 1986
The judgments of the Controller, the appellate authority
and the High Court which proceed on A.S. Sulochana's case
cannot now be sustained and deserve to be set aside.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.67 seconds)Imdad Ali vs Keshav Chand And Ors on 19 February, 2003
In Imdad Ali's case, the three-Judges Bench opined that
the law laid down in A.S. Sulochana's case was not applicable
for interpreting a provision in M.P. Accommodation Control Act
1961.
Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni on 6 December, 1935
The rule
as to exclusion of oral by documentary evidence governs the
parties to the deed in writing. A stranger to the document is not
bound by the terms of the document and is, therefore, not
excluded from demonstrating the untrue or collusive nature of
the document or the fraudulent or illegal purpose for which it
was brought into being. An enquiry into reality of transaction is
not excluded merely by availability of writing reciting the
transaction. Tyagaraja Vs. Vedathanni, AIR 1936 PC 70 is an
authority for the proposition that oral evidence in departure from
the terms of a written deed is admissible to show that what is
mentioned in the deed was not the real transaction between the
parties but it was something different. A lease of immovable
property is transfer of a right to enjoy such property. Parting
with possession or control over the tenancy premises by tenant
in favour of a third person would amount to the tenant having
'transferred his rights under the lease' within the meaning of
Section 14(2)(ii)(a) of the Act.
The M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
1