Ghanshyam Das Gupta vs Makhan Lal on 21 August, 2012
Considering the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass Gupta (supra), the Appeal is restored
and this Court has heard the parties on the merits of the appeal.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
Insofar as the unregistered
documents is concerned, since all these documents were executed prior to
the judgment in Suraj Lamp (supra) and considering that Burari is an
unauthorised colony, where registration is not permissible, it cannot be held
that there was no sale. In fact, the Defendant himself claims the title on the
basis of similar documents from his predecessor, Shri Om Prakash. Thus,
this plea has no basis.
Maya Devi vs Lalta Prasad on 19 February, 2014
13. The documents in the present case are of January 2011. The Supreme
Court in Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad (2015) 5 SCC 588 has held that the
judgment of Suraj Lamp (supra) applies prospectively. The observation of
the Supreme Court is set out below: -
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Una Co-Operative Group Housing Society ... vs Ravindra Brother on 16 August, 2007
4. On 28th February, 2018, the counsel for the Defendant relied upon two
judgments of the Supreme Court Ghanshyam Dass Gupta v. Makhan Lal
(2012) 8 SCC 745 (hereinafter referred as Ghanshyam Dass Gupta) and
UNA Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. Ravindra Brothers 142
(2007) DLT 774(DB) to submit that the appeal could have only be dismissed
for non-prosecution and not on merits.
1