Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
Om Dutt @ Om Prakash vs Ganpat Lal & Ors on 21 August, 2009 cites

Ranganayakamma & Anr vs K.S. Prakash (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 16 May, 2008

The fundamentals of the principles that a document not creating any interest in the immoveable property does not require registration; that the family settlement will need registration only if it creates any interest in the immoveable property in presenti in favour of the parties mentioned therein but not otherwise (vide Maturi Pullaiah's case supra); that the memorandum regarding past oral partition of joint family as a family settlement is not required to be registered (vide Bakhtawar Singh's case supra); and that if the deed of partition is made by way of family arrangement, no registration would have been required (vide Ranganayakamma's case supra) are neither of any doubt nor of debate but then, the answer to the question as to whether a particular document is subject to registration and stamp duty essentially depends on its nature and contents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 170 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Maturi Pullaiah And Anr. vs Maturi Narasimham And Ors. on 1 March, 1966

The fundamentals of the principles that a document not creating any interest in the immoveable property does not require registration; that the family settlement will need registration only if it creates any interest in the immoveable property in presenti in favour of the parties mentioned therein but not otherwise (vide Maturi Pullaiah's case supra); that the memorandum regarding past oral partition of joint family as a family settlement is not required to be registered (vide Bakhtawar Singh's case supra); and that if the deed of partition is made by way of family arrangement, no registration would have been required (vide Ranganayakamma's case supra) are neither of any doubt nor of debate but then, the answer to the question as to whether a particular document is subject to registration and stamp duty essentially depends on its nature and contents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 136 - K S Rao - Full Document

Malik Harikishan Singh vs Malik Partap Singh on 2 May, 1938

Seeking to question the order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that when the petitioner has clearly shown that the father of the parties made an oral partition during his life time and the brothers were given separate shares; and after the death of the father, all the brothers made an oral partition and put that in writing on 01.03.2001 with the signatures of all including that of the plaintiff-respondent No.1, he remains rather estopped from 4 challenging the same. The learned counsel submitted that the property in question being the ancestral property of the parties, no new rights were created by way of the deed in question that were only a family settlement duly signed by the brothers; and such family settlement cannot be said to be inadmissible in evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that even when unregistered partition deed may not be admissible in evidence as such, it could yet be looked into for collateral purposes so as to consider the nature of possession over the suit property but the learned Trial Court has acted wholly illegally in removing the document from consideration altogether. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions in Mahadeo (dead) through LRs Vs. Vatsalabai: 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 018 (Bombay); Ranganayakamma and another Vs. K.S.Prakash (D) by L.Rs. and others: 2008 (3) Apex Court Judgments 281 (SC); Maturi Pullaiah and another Vs. Maturi Narasimham and others: AIR 1966 SC 1836; Bakhtawar Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh and another: (1996) 9 SCC 370; and Malik Harikishan Singh Vs. Malik Partap Singh and others: AIR 1938 Privy Council 189.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1