Judgment Search Results Home Phrase:transfer of property
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(2)BomCR703
... c.p.c.').2. non-applicant maheshkumar shankarlal agrawal (for short 'the plaintiff') filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the applicant topatopatopa dhenu rathod (for short 'defendant'). the said suit was registered as regular civil suit no. 99 of 1987. according to the averments made in the ... in her favour and actual possession delivered, but that did not mean that the agreement of sale in her favour under which there was no transfer of title, was itself void being against the provisions of section 89 of the tenancy act of 1958 and, therefore, it is clear that ... an auction purchaser at court sale can obtain permission from the collector before the same is confirmed as till confirmation of sale, there is no transfer of title. in the present case also, plaintiff will have to obtain permission of the collector before the sale-deed is executed in her favour ... not exceeding ten years from the date possession of his land is taken for such acquisition.(1a) where any condition subject to which permission to transfer was granted is contravened, then the land in respect of which such permission was granted shall be liable to be forfeited in accordance with the ... exchange or lease of any land or interest thereon, or(b) no mortgage of any land or interest therein, in which the possession of the mortgaged property is delivered to the mortgagee, shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist or who being an agriculturist will, after such sale ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1889)ILR16Cal509
... act does. under the present act we entertain no doubt that the suit lies. any other conclusion would lead to very grave consequences; for since the passing of the transfer of property act the omission to register documents of the kinds mentioned in section 18 of the registration act may lead to much more serious results than before. the appeal is dismissed ... immovable property for any term not exceeding one year, and leases exempted under section 17:(d) instruments (other than wills) which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any ... , limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of a value less than one hundred rupees, to or in immovable property:(b) instruments acknowledging the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest:(c) leases of ... upon second appeal, is, whether a suit will lie on the part of a purchaser to compel registration of his kobala in a case in which the value of the property conveyed is under one hundred rupees, and registration is therefore not made compulsory by the registration act.2. we think it clear that under the present registration act iii of ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)MPHT459; 2002(4)MPLJ225
ajit singh, j. 1. appellant raju alias rajesh alias topatopatopa, the sole accused in this case, has been convicted under sections 302 and 397 of the indian penal code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and seven years respectively (both sentences ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi289; 5(1969)DLT439
... it is contended on behalf of the appellants that in as much as the decretal amount including future interest which will ultimately be recovered from the mortgaged property would traverse the limit set by s. 30 (1), the decree as made by the trial judge is bad in law. we, however, consider ... my order dated the 26th november, 1968, i rejected the prayer of the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor for permission to sell the mortgaged property privately. the following issue was settled with respect to the plea about section 30 of the act:'whether the decree-holder is nto entitled to recover ... . the final decree was passed on the 23rd january, 1962.5. the mortgages took out execution of the decree, praying that the mortgaged property be sold.6. the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor, who had died during the pendency of the execution proceedings, have filed the present objections ... failed to do so, the mortgages were entitled to apply for a final decree to realise the decretal amount by the sale of the mortgaged property.4. the judgment-debtor failed to pay the decretal amount as ordered. the mortgages put in an application for the passing of the final decree ... interest and had paid nothing towards the principal. the mortgages claimed to recover rs. 30,423.50paise principal and interest, by the sale of the mortgaged property. the suit was contested by the judgment-debtor. he had raised various pleas.3. the learned subordinate judge, who was seized of the suit, ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
i.a. ansari, j. 1. this revision has arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 29.8.1998, passed by the learned civil judge (senior division) no. 1, mongaldoi, in title suit no. 9/97 dismissing the suit.2. i have perused the impugned judgment and order and also the materials on record. i have heard mr. m.h. chouhdury, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, and mr. b.c. das, learned counsel for the defendants-opposite parties.3. the plaintiff-petitioner instituted title suit no. 9/1997 aforementioned, his case being, in brief, thus. the plaintiff is the owner of 13 bighas of land by way of purchase vide two registered sale deeds and has been in possession thereof for the last more than 24/25 years. the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff, on 9.2.1997, by force from a portion of the said purchased land of the plaintiff, the land from which the plaintiff was so disposed being the suit land, described in the schedule to the plaint. on the basis of these pleadings, the plaintiff sought for recovery of the possession of the suit land in terms of section 6 of the specific relief act.4. the defendants-opposite party contested the suit, their case being, briefly stated, thus : the defendants, puspa ram baruah, had purchased the entire land of 13 bighas aforementioned by a registered sale deed from the owner thereof and took possession thereof way back in 1999 and has been in possession thereof since then. the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land, which forms ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC3169; 2007(6)ALD53(SC); 2007(4)AWC4011(SC); (2007)5CompLJ98(SC); (2007)8SCC361
... the mere deposit of title deed s constitutes a mortgage, for no such presumption has been laid down either in the evidence act or in the transfer of property act. but a court may presume under section 114 of the evidence act that under certain circumstances a loan and a deposit of title deeds constitute ... an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds was created. what is mortgage by deposit of title deed is defined under section 58(f) of the transfer of property act, as follows:where a person in many of the following towns, namely, the towns of calcutta, madras and bombay, and in any other town ... or on condition that on such payment being made the sale shall become void, or on condition that on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller, the transaction is called a mortgage by conditional sale and the mortgagee a mortgagee by conditional sale: provided that no such transaction shall ... . (ii) it is not a case where a mortgage could be created by reason of deposit of title deed as contemplated under section 58 of the transfer of property act. (iii) mere deposit of allotment letter or the agreement dated 03.08.1972, thus, did not create any charge in favour of the bank. ... dated 03.08.1972 as also the consent letter dated 03.08.1972 being documents of title within the meaning of section 58(f) of the transfer of property act, the high court committed a mistake in opining otherwise.(v) consent letter dated 03.08.1972, which is in conformity with clause 8(b) ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1058; 2007(4)ALT24(SC); 2007(1)AWC907(SC); (2007)3CALLT37(SC); [2007(2)JCR310(SC)]; JT2007(3)SC56; (2007)3MLJ44(SC); (2007)146PLR813; 2007(2)SCALE466; (2007)2SCC40
... not to be readily assumed that an illustration to a section is repugnant to it and rejected....it was concluded:.we accordingly hold that when a person transfers property representing that he has a present interest therein, whereas he has, in fact, only a spes successionis, the transferee is entitled to the benefit ... scope of the section on its terms, it clearly applies whenever a person transfers property to which he has no title on a representation that he has a present and transferable interest therein, and acting on that representation, the transferee takes a transfer for consideration. when these conditions are satisfied, the section enacts that if ... , in the absence of such proof the general law of succession and inheritance shall apply. the plea of inapplicability of section 43 of the transfer of property act could have been taken by harcharan singh and not by the appellant, who has based his claim on the basis of the will. ... satisfied.the said finding was arrived at, inter alia, on the premise that kulwant singh was a minor on the date on which the property was transferred and in the marginal note of the sale deed specifically mentioned:.that the land had been acquired by her and by her minor son by ... and it was for the respondent to show that he had no knowledge about the litigation.9. in applying the provisions of section 43 of the transfer of property act, the high court, however, held:i) it was harcharan singh who had pleaded the mischief;ii) after the death of udham kaur, ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)ALD92(SC); 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)485; (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN45; 2008(5)CTC260; JT2008(9)SC12; (2009)2MLJ526(SC); 2008AIRSCW4829; 2008(8)SCC564; 2008(4)CivilLJ391; 2008(4)Supreme360; 2008(4)LH(SC)2617; 2008(3)ICC816.
... present case is covered by the expression `change of user' as used in section 108(o) of the transfer of property act. in dashrath baburao sangale's case [supra], the premises was let out to the tenant for sugarcane juice business whereas the tenant was ... jothi and anr. v. lajja bal (deceased) and anr. : 2scr1 to suggest that the respondent had violated section 108(o) of the transfer of property act. after carefully examining the aforesaid decisions of this court, we do not find any support from the said decisions for the purpose of holding that the ... the provision of section 107 of the transfer of property act will not be admissible in evidence if the same is not registered but that deed may be used as evidence of any collateral transaction ... the registration act, the high court observed that a document purporting to be a lease and required to be registered under section 107 of the transfer of property act is not admissible in evidence if it is not registered. proviso to section 49, however, provides that although a lease deed falling under ... agreement (ext.4) creating tenancy from month to month in respect of the suit premises was not compulsorily registerable under section 107 of the transfer of property act. he also contended that the high court as well as the trial court were wrong in holding that the lease agreement being an unregistered ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR1774; 2003(3)KarLJ470
... aside the finding that defendant no. 1 failed to make reasonable enquiries which he was required to make before he would claim protection under section 41 of the transfer of property act'. (underline supplied) 22. in fact, the trial court has observed and held as under:para 15 .... 'there is also material on record to ... for valuable consideration without notice of claim, if any, of plaintiff, purchased the suit lands and as such, he is protected under section 41 of the transfer of property act. on account of this stand of 1st defendant only, this court appears to have framed the question of law referred to already.8. however, it ... show that defendant 1 has not taken reasonable care to ascertain that defendants 2 to 4 were real owners of the suit properties and they had power to make transfer. under such circumstances it cannot be said that he has acted in good faith d.w. 1 admits in the cross-examination that ... pleaded by 1st defendant supported by defendants no. 3 and 4 is believed.14. it need not be said that transfer of an immoveable property can be by way of registered document when the value of such property is more than rs. 100/-. it is not the case or evidence of 1st defendant that when plaintiff gave ... they did not know. it is, therefore, the appellant-defendant no. 1 cannot seek protection of benefit of section 41 of transfer of property act, to non-suit the plaintiff in entirety'.24. in the above view of the matter, when, as required under proviso to section 41 ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1332; 2007(1)AWC462(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN19; 2007(2)CTC562; [2007(2)JCR145(SC)]; (2007)3MLJ377(SC); (2007)147PLR229; 2006(14)SCALE81; A.I.R.2007S.C.W.1490
... . ahilya jha and manik roy had admittedly purchased the suit property after 1991 without obtaining leave of the court and thus the transfer is pendente lite and is clearly hit by section 52 of the transfer of property act, 1882 (in short the 'tp acttp acttp act'). it was further observed that manik roy had purchased the property on 3.12.1997. ahilaya jha applicant had purchased the ... portion of the suit property on 9.12.2000. the trial court, therefore, rejected the prayer for impleadment.5. being aggrieved by the ... all cases contest the pending suit. in sarvinder singh v. dalip singh and ors. : (1996)5scc539 it was observed in para 6 as follows:6. section 52 of the transfer of property act envisages that:during the pendency in any court having authority within the limits of india... of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right ... on such terms as it may impose.it would, therefore, be clear that the defendants in the suit were prohibited by operation of section 52 to deal with the property and could not transfer or otherwise deal with it in any way affecting the rights of the appellant except with the order or authority of the court. admittedly, the authority or order ...Tag this Judgment!