Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.21 seconds)Article 54 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 12 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 13 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sanjay Verma vs Manik Roy And Ors on 8 December, 2006
38. Relying upon the ratio of the authority cited as 2007(1)
CCC 401 SC titled as Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy, Ld. Counsel for
the plaintiffs has vehemently argued that doctrine of lispendens as
specified U/s 52 of Transfer of Property Act is applicable.
Sunil Kapoor vs Himmat Singh & Ors on 22 September, 2008
In para no. 11 of the
authority cited as 167(2010) DLT 806 titled as Sunil Kapoor Vs.
Himmat Singh & Ors., the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as
under :
"11. A mere agreement to sell of immovable
property does not create any right in the property save the
right to enforce the said agreement. Thus, even if the
respondents/ plaintiffs are found to have agreed to sell the
property, the petitioner/ defendant would not get any right to
occupy that property as an agreement purchaser.
Jiwan Das vs Narain Das on 1 May, 1981
This Court
in Jiwan Das v. Narain Das, AIR 1981 Delhi 291 has held
that in fact no rights accrue to the agreement purchaser, not
even after the passing of a decree for specific performance
and till conveyance in accordance with law and in pursuance
thereto is executed. Thus in law, the petitioner has no right
to remain in occupation of the premises or retain possession
of the premises merely because of the agreement to sell in
his favour."
Iswar Bhai C. Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel vs Harihar Behera & Anr on 16 March, 1999
In the
authority cited as AIR 1999 SC 1341 titled as Ishwar Bhai C. Patel
alias Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr., in para no. 23, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under :
"23.
Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari vs Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh on 24 March, 1930
This decision was also relied upon by the
Bombay High court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v.
Radhabai Krisnarao Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bombay 97,
which observed as under :
"It is the bounden duty of a party personally knowing
Suit No. 461/14 (Old Suit No. 07/07) Page No. 30/36
the facts and circumstances, to give evidence on his own
behalf and to submit to crossexamination and his non
appearance as a witness would be the strongest possible
circumstance which will go to discredit the truth of his
case."