Category: Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 – Declaration of title – Permanent injunction – Quit notice – Validity of – Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – After purchase of second schedule property from original owner, defendant rightly issued quit notice under Section 106 of Act 1882 to plaintiff

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. RAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and…

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Actionable claim – In terms of Section 3 of the TPA, actionable claim means (a) claim to an unsecured debt (other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property, hypothecation or pledge (b) beneficial interest in a movable property – Both these are recognised as enforceable – Other claims, however, do not fall within the expression “actionable claim”.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. — Appellant Vs. HDFC BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar…

Considering the principles laid down in sub-section (4)(b) of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act Act, the seller will have a charge over the property subject matter of the sale for unpaid consideration and he can enforce the charge by filing a suit.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Abhay S. Oka & Rajesh Bindal, JJ. Civil Appeal No.10412 of 2013 Decided on: 31.07.2023 Yogendra Prasad Singh (Dead) through LRs – Appellants Versus Ram…

Practice of ‘ta khubzul badlain’ in Bihar recognises that a duly executed sale deed will not operate as a transfer in praesenti but postpones the actual transfer of title, from the time of execution and registration of the deed, to the time of exchange of equivalents, that is, registration receipt and the sale consideration, if the intention of the parties was that title would pass only on payment of entire sale consideration

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS — Appellant Vs. RAM BACHAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – the prospective purchaser having performed his part of the contract and lawfully in possession acquires possessory title which is liable to be protected in view of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GHANSHYAM — Appellant Vs. YOGENDRA RATHI — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.7527-7528 of 2012 Decided…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.