Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Sardar Govindrao Mahadik & Anr vs Devi Sahai & Ors on 15 December, 1981
In that case the appellants had put
forward certain documents as a lease which was admittedly beyond 11 months and,
therefore, it was held that the company was not entitled to avail the statutory right
under Section 53A. In Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai, (1982) 1 SCC
237, this Court had held that the Court would look at the writing that is offered as a
contract for transfer for consideration of any immovable property, then examine the
acts said to have been done in furtherance of the contract, and find out whether
there is a real nexus between the contract and the acts pleaded as a part
performance so that, to refuse relief would be perpetuating the fraud of the party,
who after having taken advantage or benefit of the contract, backs out and leads
nonregistration as a defence, a defence analogous to Section 4 of Statute of
Frauds. In that case it was held that the mortgagee in possession was not entitled to
claim title of ownership against suit of mortgagor for redemption. Therefore, the
doctrine of part performance in Section 58(3) was held not available to establish
title to the property. In Sheth Maneklal Mansukhbhai v. M/s. Homusji Jamshedji
Ginwala and Sons, 1950 SCR 75, this Court had held that Section 53A of the Act is
only a partial importation of English doctrine of part performance.
Technicians Studio Private Ltd vs Lila Ghosh & Anr on 19 September, 1977
In
Technicians Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. Lila Ghosh (1978) 1 SCR 516 at 520, this Court had
held that it is well settled that Section 53A confers no active title on the transferee
in possession; it only imposes a statutory bar on the transferor".
Ramlal & Anr vs Phagua & Ors on 19 October, 2005
17. Further more in order to establish the claim of the absolute and exclusive
ownership, plaintiff is required to establish complete chain of ownership, which finally
culminates in his favour. In the present case it is still a mystery before this court, that
who was the original owner of the suit property? i.e. how defendant no.3 became
owner of this property? It is settled law that a vendor cannot convey a better title
in favour of the vendee. (ref. Ram Lal Vs. Phagua (2006) 1 SCC 168; Vishwanath
Prasad Vs. Rajender Prasad AIR 2006 SC 2965). Though this principle of law is
subject to certain exceptions provided in the Transfer of Properties Act, however,
since plaintiff has not taken plea that his case comes under any of such exceptions,
therefore, this court is not required to discuss those exceptions. In that situation the
general law prevails and operates even in the present case.
Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs Rajendra Prasad & Anr on 24 February, 2006
17. Further more in order to establish the claim of the absolute and exclusive
ownership, plaintiff is required to establish complete chain of ownership, which finally
culminates in his favour. In the present case it is still a mystery before this court, that
who was the original owner of the suit property? i.e. how defendant no.3 became
owner of this property? It is settled law that a vendor cannot convey a better title
in favour of the vendee. (ref. Ram Lal Vs. Phagua (2006) 1 SCC 168; Vishwanath
Prasad Vs. Rajender Prasad AIR 2006 SC 2965). Though this principle of law is
subject to certain exceptions provided in the Transfer of Properties Act, however,
since plaintiff has not taken plea that his case comes under any of such exceptions,
therefore, this court is not required to discuss those exceptions. In that situation the
general law prevails and operates even in the present case.