Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Roop Kumar vs Mohan Thedani on 2 April, 2003
35. Trite to state that it is a general rule that wherever written instruments
are appointed, either by the requirement of law, or by the contract of the
parties, to be the repositories and memorials of truth, any other evidence is
excluded from being used either as a substitute for such instruments, or to
contradict or alter them. This is a matter both of principle and policy. It is of
principle because such instruments are in their own nature and origin,
RFA 344/2014 Page 23 of 24
entitled to a much higher degree of credit than parol evidence. It is of policy
because it would be attended with great mischief if those instruments, upon
which men's rights depended, were liable to be impeached by loose collateral
evidence. [Ref: Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (supra)]
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
31. Coming now to the last submission made on behalf of the appellant
that in view of the decision in Suraj Lamp (supra) the said GPA dated
22.11.06 and other documents of title cannot be regarded as valid and ought
to be declared null and void, is incorrect keeping in view the established
position of law. It is the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that
there cannot be a sale by execution of a power of attorney nor can there be a
transfer by execution of an agreement of sale and a power of attorney,
therefore the same do not convey any title nor create any interest in the
property in question, in favour of the respondent.
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 15 May, 2009
"38. What has also escaped the attention of the executing court is
that Suraj Lamp [Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of
Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 126] has
prospective operation, thereby rendering it inapplicable to the subject
RFA 344/2014 Page 21 of 24
2006 transaction. Secondly, if the general power of attorney excuted
in favour of the appellant Smt Maya Devi was bereft of legal
efficacy, the ownership of Smt Nirmal Verma would also be invalid,
and sequentially the property would have no connection whatsoever
with the judgment-debtor since he had purportedly derived title only
through a will."
Bhagat Ram And Anr vs Suresh And Ors on 25 November, 2003
(e)] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall arise to the effect that events
contained in the endorsements of registration, were regularly and duly
performed and are correctly recorded. [Ref: Bhagat Ram v. Suresh, reported
as (2003) 12 SCC 35]
Kaliaperumal vs Rajagopal & Anr on 20 February, 2009
29. Normally, ownership and title to the property will pass to the
purchaser on registration of the sale deed with effect from the date of
RFA 344/2014 Page 19 of 24
execution of the sale deed. But this is not an invariable rule, as the true test
of passing of property is the intention of parties. Registration is prima facie
proof of an intention to transfer the property, though not being proof of an
operative transfer if payment of consideration is a condition precedent for
passing of the property. [Ref: Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal, reported as (2009)
4 SCC 193] In the present case, a perusal of the said GPA dated 22.11.06
and other documents of title indicate that consideration already stood paid
and the receipt of consideration had been stated as a fact in the recital of the
terms of the said documents executed and registered before the Sub-
Registrar, Nand Nagri, Delhi. There is nothing on the record apart from
unsupported contentions on behalf of the appellant that the intention of the
appellant was contrary to the terms of the said documents of title and transfer
of property and that the said factum of receipt of consideration was in fact,
incorrectly recorded.
Maya Devi vs Lalta Prasad on 19 February, 2014
Therefore, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Maya Devi's case (supra), the documents of transfer of
property i.e. GPA dated 22.11.06, agreement to sell (Ex. DW-1/2),
possession letter (Ex.DW-1/3), receipt (Ex. DW-1/4) and affidavit (EX. DW-
1/5), all dated 22.11.2006, in the present case constitute a valid transfer of
immovable property and effect a valid sale, complete with a sale
consideration of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand), thereby
creating rights as to ownership, title, possession and interest with respect to
the property in question, in favour of the respondent.
1