Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.99 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Aslam Parwez vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 April, 2003
In this regard,
reliance have been placed on record the following cases laws:
(1) Rama Kant Jain vs. M S Jain passed by Delhi High
Court on 24.03.1999 in Suit No.1740/1984
(2) D S Parvathamma vs. A. Srinivasan AIR 2003 SC
3542
(3) Aslam Parwez vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi AIR 2003 SC
3547
(4) Illikkal Dewaswom vs. Narayanan Raghavan & anr.
Illikkal Devaswom vs Pottakkatt Narayanan Raghavan And Anr. on 17 September, 1965
In Illikkal Devaswom (supra) the plaintiff
had not claimed title of the property in question on the basis of
sale whereas in appeal his alternative case was that he was in
possession of the property in question and become owner on the
basis of doctrine of part performance and in such circumstances
his defence based on the doctrine of part performance of the
contract was rejected. Therefore, this case law has no relevance
to the facts of the present case.
Nirakar Das vs Gourhari Das And Ors. on 18 January, 1995
In Nirankar Das (supra) the possession was acquired
RCA No. 61217/16 Yudhisther Sharma . V. Om Pk. Sharma Page 13 of 23
under the agreement for sale and being permissive possession
it was held that plaintiff was not entitled to claim title qua the
property in question by adverse possession.
Abbot India Ltd. vs Rajinder Mohindra & Anr. on 17 January, 2014
15 In FGP Ltd. (supra) the following were held to be
the ingredients by invoking provisions of Section 53A of
Transfer of Property Act:
Sabina Sablok vs Promila Mehra & Another on 12 March, 2014
19 In Sabina Sablok (supra) it was held that transfer of
ownership right in immovable property can only be always by
registered documents, therefore, has no relevance to the
present case wherein defendant claimed title through
agreement to sell on the basis of doctrine of part performance.
Gaya Parshad Dikshit vs Dr. Nirmal Chander & Anr on 3 January, 1984
21 In Gaya Parshad Dixit (supra) a licencee was held not to
the benefit of claiming ownership of the property in question by
way of adverse possession, therefore, has no relevance to the
present case.
Praveen Bansal & Ors. vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 25 September, 2014
In Praveen Bansal (supra) it was observed that a person
cannot claim simultaneously ownership right in the property in
question on the basis of title document and on the basis of
adverse possession in the suit property. But defendant is not
claiming title to the suit property by way of adverse possession
and, therefore, this case has no relevance to the facts of the
present case.
Mohan Lal (Deceased) Throughhis Lrs. ... vs Mirza Abdul Gaffar & Anr on 12 December, 1995
(16) Raysing Hurji Bhil & Ors. vs. Vaniben Manjibhai &
Ors. AIR 2007 Gujarat 69
(17) Praveen Bansal & Ors. vs. Financial Commissioner
& Ors. 214 (2014) DLT 155
(18) Mohan Lal (deceased) through his Lrs Kachru &
Ors. vs. Mira Abdul Gaffar & anr. AIR 1996 SC 910.