Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.98 seconds)Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Chinna Thevar vs Gnanaprakasi Ammal And Anr. on 18 January, 1978
8. A reading of the decision would show that what is essential while protecting the transferee with a shield of Section 53-A is a valid contract. Whether there is a valid contract in the case has to be decided. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant reported in Chinna Thevar v. Gnanaprakasi Ammal (1978)2 M.L.J. 533 will not come to his aid since in that case, it was held in the revision filed against the order for eviction that the tenant is entitled to set up the agreement of sale as a shield in defence to the eviction action. In this case however, this Court specifically held in the C.R.P. that the agreement is not genuine.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Narasimhasetty (Deceased) By L.Rs vs Padmasetty on 20 February, 1998
(i) Narasimhasetty v. Padmasetty A.I.R. 1998 Karn. 389 (F.B.), where it was held thus:
Section 16 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Patel Natwarlal Rupji vs Shri Kondm Group Kheti Vishayak And Anr on 6 December, 1995
In the case of Patel Natwarlal Rupji v. Shri Kondh Group Kheti Vishayak A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1088, it was held:
Mohan Lal (Deceased) Throughhis Lrs. ... vs Mirza Abdul Gaffar & Anr on 12 December, 1995
It is clear from the above decision that merely because he happened to be in possession he cannot claim protection of Section 53-A unless he is also ready to take sale deed in his favour. Even for the purpose of defence, he has to prove the ingredients of Section 16 of Specific Relief Act. Once it is found that the agreement is not proved to be prima facie genuine and also he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, it can only be held that denial of title is not bona fide.