Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

possession claimed on the basis of endorsement to protect possession, therefore, cannot be said to be for collateral purposes. Learned lower appellate court was wrong

part performance of the contract is either put in possession or is continued in possession and has done some act in furtherance of the contract ... Property Act, 1882 should have been given to the petitioner to protect possession in suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment

property for which such agreement is executed, except that he can protect his possession of such property, if he was given possession under the agreement ... sale deed in favour of the transferee. Such a right to protect possession against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed in service against a third

Property Act is the right available to the person to protect his possession and does not create any title on him. Whereas, Section ... specific performance. Now the plaintiff has not filed any suit to protect his possession. He simply filed a suit for enforcing the Contract. Therefore

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to protect possession of the premises alleged to have been taken by them on lease from respondent

contract. (iii) If the transferee is already in possession and he continues in possession in part-performance of the contract, he further should have done ... defendant taking plea under section 53-A of the Act to protect his possession of the suit property even though a suit for specific performance

this interregnum period, the vendor/transferor had a duty to protect his title and possession in the suit property so that on completion ... future, the vendor has a legal and moral obligation to protect the title and possession of the property in question until registration of the deed

collateral purposes to show the position that the petitioner can protect his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act i.e. part

agreement to sell dated 30.6.1992 and the possession receipt dated 30.6.1992 executed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the petitioner ... petitioner and also sought for a permanent injunction to protect the possession of the petitioner. It has further been asserted in the petition that

prior to the filing of the suit. Contending that he could protect his possession as against the whole world except the true owner, namely