Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Minor Navaneetha Krishnan vs T.Jayaprakash on 1 September, 2008 cites

Ramdas Chimna vs Pralhad Deorao And Ors. on 13 March, 1964

"6. the question then arises whether it is open to the mother to relinquish her interest in the joint family properties orally when the joint family properties consist of immovable properties like the suit fields and the value of her share therein is more than Rs.100/-. Mr.Deshpande drew my attention to the case reported in Dattatraya govind v. Narayan Gangaram, AIR 1936 Nagpur 186. It was held by Vivian Bose J., in that case that "except in the case of partition among the members of a joint Hindu family, where the unities of possession, interest, title and time are complete and except in the case of entrance to a religious order involving complete renunciation of the world, no person can divest himself of interests which have once vested in him by a mere disclaimer. A title once vested can be divested only by a recognized conveyance or one of the other means allowed by law. It cannot pass by admission, relinquishment, or disclaimer when the law requires a deed". This case does not lay down that relinquishment cannot be made orally. All that it says is that the title once vested can be divested only by a recongized conveyance or by one of the other means allowed by law. It further says that the title once vested cannot pass by relinquishment when the law requires a deed. What has to be seen is whether the law requires that relinquishment can only be made by a deed or by an instrument. Transfer of Property Act clearly recognizes oral transfers. Section 9 of the Act provides that "a transfer of property may be made without writing in every case in which a writing is not expressly required by law". It follows, therefore, that an oral transfer of property is rule unless there is law which expressly requries that it should be made in writing. Transfer of Property Act contains various transfers where writing is necessary. Under S.54, a sale of tangible immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- or upwards, or of a reversion or other intangible thing is required to be nade only by a registered instrument. Under Sec.59, a writing is necessary in the case of a simple mortgage or in the case of all other mortgages except a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds where the principal sum secured is Rs.100/- or upwards. Under Sec.107, a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, is required to be made in writing. Under Sec.123, a gift of immovable property can only be made by a writing. Under Sec.130, all transfers of actionable claims have to be made by writing and, under Sec.118, all exchanges are subject to the same rules as are applicable to sales. Thus, when the law requires that there should be an instrument in writing and that instrument must be registered, the transfer can only be effected in that manner. But where no writing is required by the Transfer of Property Act or any other law, the transfer may be made orally. Mr.Deshpande is unable to point out any statute which requires that the relinquishment by the mother of her interest in the joint family property, when the property consists of immovable property and the value of the share therein exceeds Rs.100/-, can only be made in writing or by an instrument registered."
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1