Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)

Cherichi vs Ittianam on 6 December, 2000

Title will not pass until the sale deed is registered (vide Cherichi v. Ittianam AIR 2001 Ker 184). Admittedly, Rev.Paul Sandegren had not executed any registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Foundation. “Gift” is another mode. Section 122 defines “Gift' and Section 123 states that the transfer by Gift must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. In this case, no such gift deed has been executed by Rev.Paul Sandegren.

Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 15 December, 2003

14.The revenue documents stood only in the name of Rev.Paul Sandegren. The contesting defendants admittedly were in possession of the suit property and that is why, the plaintiff sought recovery of possession. The suit could have been decreed only if the plaintiff had established superior title. Otherwise, the person in possession is entitled to continue in possession [vide Rame Gowda vs. Varadapa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769]. The contesting defendants claim title based on a Will said to have been executed by Rev.Paul Sandegren. The Will had been probated. The endeavour of the plaintiff to revoke the same was in vain. Of course, the attempt of the plaintiff was negatived only on the ground that they had no caveatable interest. If according to the plaintiff, the property was theirs, then, they need not bother if Rev.Paul Sandegren had executed a Will in favour of the contesting defendants bequeathing the property. Yet, the defence of the appellants is not upheld on the strength of the so called Will. On the other hand, I rest my decision only on the ground that the plaintiff Foundation has not established a superior title. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1261 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1