Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)

The Jumma Masjid, Mercara vs Kodimaniandra Deviah on 11 January, 1962

"7. Section 43, on the other hand, embodies a 'rule of feeding the estoppel' and enacts that a person who makes a representation shall not be heard to allege the contrary as against a person who acts thereupon and it is immaterial whether the transferor acts bona fide or fraudulently in making the representation. [See Jumma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah MANU/SC/0397/1962 : AIR1962SC847.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 203 - Full Document

Tanu Ram Bora vs Promod Ch Das (Dead) Thr. Lrs. on 8 February, 2019

"7.4 Section 43 of the T.P. Act provides that where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operates on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. Thus, if at the time of transfer, the vendor/transferor might have a defective title or have no title and/or no right or interest, however subsequently the transferor acquires the right, title or interest and the contract of transfer subsists, in that case at the option of the transferee, such a transfer is valid. In such a situation, the transferor cannot be 2 AIR 1985 SC 694=MANU/SC/0293/1985 3 (2019) 4 SCC 173 36 permitted to challenge the transfer and/or the transferor has no option to raise the dispute in making the transfer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - M R Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next