Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Act:transfer of property

Mar 31 1999

Murlidhar s/o Bhima Vaidya & Another Vs. Nababbi Yousufkhan, deceased ...

  • Decided on : 31-Mar-1999

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1999(4)ALLMR683; 2000(1)BomCR670; (2000)2BOMLR891

ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. This Court by order dated 20-12-1988, while admitting the Civil Revision Application, has directed that the Civil Revision Application to be heard along with Writ Petition No. 1692 of 1988. In view of this order both these matters are listed together for final hearing. The parties in both the proceedings are same and the subject-matter of immovable property involved is also the same. However, both the proceedings arise in between the parties from the different proceedings, namely, writ petition arises from the proceedings under section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act filed by the respondents against the original landlord in which the petitioners also participated at a later stage and the order for delivery of the possession have been passed in favour of respondents upto the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Petition No. MRT/AH-V-3/88, decided on 14th September, 1988 and the said order is under challenge in the writ petition.2. The Civil ...
Aug 14 1969

Dr. Harumal and Ors. Vs. Smt. Sahjadi Bibi

  • Decided on : 14-Aug-1969

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1969()WLN429

C.M. Lodha, J.1. These are two connected appeals arising out of two suits for ejectment instituted by the landlord Smt. Sahiadi Bibi against Dr. Harumal and Sugnomal (deceased) respectively. It appears that Sugnornal died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by his heirs, Sita Devi and others. The facts and the questions of law involved in both the appeals are identical and, therefore, it would be convenient to decide them by a common judgment.2. Dr. Harumal and the deceased Sugnomal were admitted as tenants by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on 28-1-48 in the Second and third storeys respectively of the house in question. The rent settled with Dr. Haru Mal was Rs. 3 per month and that with Sugnomal Rs. 6/8/- per month. The plaintiff Sahjadi Bibi purchased this property from the Competent Officer, Ajmer., on 26-9-53, and, thereafter on 18-11-53 she gave notices to both the tenants to vacate the property as the same was required by her for personal use and occupation...
May 26 2004

Sher-i-Kashmir National Medical Institute Trust Vs. State of J and K a ...

  • Decided on : 26-May-2004

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Sher-i-Kashmir National Medical Institute Trust (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Trust), a public charitable trust, created vide registered deed on 19th May, 1973, through its Vice Chairman, Dr. Muhammad Ali Matoo, challenging Government Order No.820-HME of 2003 dated 22nd July, 2003 issued pursuant to Cabinet Decision No.119/Cir dated 22nd July, 2003, under the signatures of Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Education Department, Jammu and Kashmir. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the Government has accorded sanction to the:1) revocation of Government Order No.214-ME of 1976 dated 27.08.1976 and Government order No. Rev (NDK) 90 of 1978 dated 19.04.1978 and taking over the possession of the property and land etc. referred to in the said Government orders;2) taking over the possession and management of Kashmir Nursing Home, Gupkar Road, Srinagar;3) taking over the full management of the affairs of Sher-i-Kashmir...
Sep 02 2008

Francis Castellino and Essar Shipping Limited Vs. R.C. Coastal Exports ...

  • Decided on : 02-Sep-2008

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR120; 2008(5)BomCR519; (2008)110BOMLR2863

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Claimant obtained an Award against the Respondent. The Claimant has sought to execute the Award under its Execution Application dated 22.6.2006. The Claimant got the office premises and the movables along with the right, title and interest of the Respondent in the goodwill of the business together with the tenancy rights therein attached under Order 21 Rules 43 and 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The office premises is situate at Plot No. 606, Garden Resort, SionTrombay Road, Mumbai 400 017. The Applicant has taken out this Chamber Summons for raising the attachment.2. It is the case of the Applicant that he is the sole owner of the suit premises. He has created a tenancy right in one Garden Resort. That is a proprietary Concern of which he is the sole proprietor. He contends that, at the request of his son Agnello Castellino, who was a Director of the Respondent Company, he had given the Respondent Company a table space in his office premises in 1997. He furt...
Mar 05 1984

Amrao Singh and Ors. Vs. Santan Dharam Sabha, Chandigarh

  • Decided on : 05-Mar-1984

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1985P& H195

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated March 31, 1976, by which the decision of the trial Court was affirmed and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.2. The subject-matter of this litigation is a temple known as Durga Devi alias Basanti Devi Mandir and vacant land attached thereto which were earlier situated in village Kailar, Tehsil Kharar, District Ambala. The temple was built by the Rajputs and Brahmins residents of the village. The area of whole village including the temple was acquired for construction of Chandigarh. Compensation vis-a-vis the temple was also assessed. However, the owners refused to accept the same. The temple was preserved by the Authorities as a place of worship. Eventually the Government decided to transfer the proprietary rights regarding the temple to the owners in consideration of the amount of compensation already assessed at the time of acquisition which the owners had refused to accept. A convey...
Jul 04 2006

Divisional Traffic Officer KSRTC, Mysore Division Vs. K. Ramaiah and O ...

  • Decided on : 04-Jul-2006

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ481

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. The petitioner KSRTC of Mysore Division is challenging the order of the Principal District Judge, Mysore dated 20.9.2002 in Misc. Appeals 12, 13, 16, 17 & 18/1998 reversing the order passed by the competent authority/officer under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974.2. According to the petitioner, shop bearing No. 12, 4, 3, 8 , 1 had been allotted to the respective respondents for carrying on a particular business and that the occupants of the premises have been in unauthorised occupation after expiry of the period of allotment, having no right to carry on the business in the premises by virtue of efflux of time. Further, since these respondents - allottees are claiming as tenants, notices were issued to them determining the tenancy as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act. After determination of the tenancy, petitioner filed a complaint before the 7th respondent who is the competent of...
Jan 29 1952

Debi Singh and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Saran Singh and Ors.

  • Decided on : 29-Jan-1952

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All716

S.B. Chandiramani, J. 1. It appears that on the 10th April, 1934, Debi Singh, one of the appellants, executed a deed described as a deed of conditional sale in favour of one Atbal Singh (predecessor of some of the respondents) in respect of a one-third share of mahal Chaudhri Harpal Singh in village Bangarmau, District Unnao. Debi Singh applied under Section 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act showing the property covered thereby as his own. He claimed that the transaction evidenced by the sale-deed of 1934 was in fact a mortgage by conditional sale. Atbal Singh objected saying that it was an out and out sale subject to a condition of repurchase within a specified time. The Special Judge held that Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act when correctly construed does not indicate that every deed of sale containing a condition for repurchase operated only as a deed of mortgage and the true test still is the intention of the parties which may be gathered from the language of the deed an...
Oct 18 1982

Sushilabehn and Ors. Vs. Anandilal Bapalal and Ors.

  • Decided on : 18-Oct-1982

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1983Guj126; (1983)1GLR278

B.K. Mehta, J.1. Original defendants 2 to 6 of Civil suit No. 3646 of 1973, on the file of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned City Civil Judge holding that the release deed dated February 11, 1972 executed by original defendant 7 in their favour amounted to fraudulent transfer within the terms of Section 53, T. P. Act inasmuch as it was executed with the ulterior motive to defeat and delay the creditors plaintiffs 1 to 5 whose suits were pending at the relevant time of the execution of the said deed, and in which ultimately decrees were made in their favour against him, have filed First Appeal No. 50/79 and original defendant 1 has filed First Appeal No. 587/79.2. It is not necessary to set out elaborately the minutest facts leading to these appeals. Suffice it to state a few facts in order to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants in these appeals it should be stated that First Appeal 587/79 is an appeal preferr...
Nov 04 2010

Mahibuddin Laskar Vs. Abdul Matin Laskar.

  • Decided on : 04-Nov-2010

Court : Guwahati

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 17/98 by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Cachar at Silchar thereby allowing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 70/95 by the learned Civil Judge , Jr. Division, Cachar, Silchar decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 2. I have heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. FU Borbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the defendants/respondents when the matter was called upon for hearing. 3. The plaintiff/resondent instituted the Title Suit No . 70/95 in the court of the then Sadar Munsiff No. 1, Silchar, Cachar impleading the present respondent as the sole defendant. The pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent is that on 15. 5. 75 the plaintiff No . 1 and his brother late Jamiruddin Laskar transferred the suit land in favour of the defendant for valuable consideration of Rs. 5,000/-by execut...
Feb 12 1968

Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. American President Line ...

  • Decided on : 12-Feb-1968

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1968)70BOMLR487; [1968]38CompCas294(Bom)

Nain, J. 1. This revision application involves an interesting point of law as to whether an insurer of goods carried by sea and covered by a policy of marine insurance, who on payment for partial loss is subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the insured person to the extent of the payment, is entitled to sue the carrier of goods in his own name to recover compensation for partial loss or damage to the goods. This depends on the interpretation of section 135A of the Transfer of Property Act, which is applicable to the suit transaction. Sections 130A and 135A were inserted in the Transfer of Property Act by the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act (6 of 1944) and have since been repealed by the Marine Insurance Act (9 of 1963) and have been re-enacted in sections 52, 53, 79 and 90 of the said Act. 2. The facts leading to this matter are that the petitioners are a company carrying on business of insurance. The respondents No. 1 are a shipping company who carry on business of carrie...
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //