Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.43 seconds)
M.Natarajan (Died) vs Sengoda Gounder on 28 July, 2022 cites

Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi vs Mohan Bikram Shah on 8 May, 1931

“In India there is no equity or right in property created in favour of the purchaser by the contract between the mortgagee and the proposed purchaser. In India, there is no distinction between legal and equitable estates. The law of India knows nothing of that distinction between legal and equitable property in the sense in which it was under- stood when equity was administered by the Court of Chan- cery in England. Under the Indian law, there can be but one owner that is, the legal owner. See Rani Chhatra Kumari v. Mohan Bikram (1) (1) (1931) 58 I.A. 279.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

Rambaran Prosad vs Ram Mohit Hazra & Ors on 6 September, 1966

A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in s. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. See Rambaran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra(1) & Ors. C). The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognised in section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and in section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation created by a contract of sale is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20 described in section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to, an interest or easement therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 136 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 Next