Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.77 seconds)Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
Section 105 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Ram Kumar Das vs Jagadish Chandra Deb Dhabal Deband ... on 26 November, 1951
This Act applies to Assam and therefore it cannot be argued with any force or reason that notwithstanding the failure of the parties to comply with the requirement of Section 107, it is still a lease, the fixed duration of which is an enforceable term. The document may be valid for purposes of Registration Act but the Transfer of Property Act super-imposes a further requirement and would not recognise it as a lease unless it conforms to its requirement. The question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, AIR 1952 S. C. 23. In this case defendant executed a registered Kabuliyat dated 8th December 1924 in favour of the Receiver who was in charge of the plaintiff's estate by which he purported to take a settlement of land in suit for building purposes for a period of ten years at an annual rent.
Maqbool Ahmad And Ors. vs Debi And Ors. on 23 December, 1948
Its use was made for determining the nature of his occupation. It was expressly held that it could not operate as a lease. The plaintiff however was held entitled to ask for possession and the claim about permanent rights made by the defendant was negatived by reason of the terms of the document In Maqbool Ahmad v. Debi, AIR 1949 All. 455 it was held that
"a mere rent note or a qabuliat does not amount to a lease. A person executing the rent note is, however, bound by its terms as a matter of his undertaking although the other party who has not signed the document would not be bound by them".
1