//
archives

Deed

This tag is associated with 5 posts

Land acquisition Act – Under sec.51 A no court can discard the comparable registered sale deed merely because no one belongs to the sale deed not examined = ] Court should considered the highest sale value if not discard for any reasons = when acquisition was not for house sites, no deduction can be done for amenities = claimants are entitled interest on solatium also = Since claimed less amount , the apex court fixed compensation as prayed by claimant= Himmat Singh and others ….Appellants versus State of M.P. and another ….Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41038

Land acquisition Act –  Under sec.51 A no court can discard the comparable registered sale deed merely because no one belongs to the sale deed not examined = ] Court should considered the highest sale value if not discard for any reasons =  when acquisition was  not for house sites, no deduction can be done … Continue reading

Deposit of Title Deeds – Registration when requires ? – Mutation of entry in Revenue records about mortgage when arises = STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Vs. NAVIR SINGH & ANR published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40878

Mutation of entry of deposit of title deeds in revenue records when not covered by State Govt.     Notification , can not be changed;   As per sec.59 of T.P.Act Deposit of title deeds evidenced with separate memorandum requires no Registration  =       Deposit of title deeds when required to be registered … Continue reading

Sec.6, 33,35,38, Art. 23,47 – A of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act – admissibility of a document- an agreement of sale= OMPRAKASH Vs. LAXMINARAYAN & ORS. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40861

Sec.6, 33,35,38, Art. 23,47 – A of Schedule 1-A of the  Stamp  Act – admissibility of a document-     an agreement of sale with delivery of possession scribed on Rs.50/- only – admissible only on payment of stamp duty and penalty – irrespective of pleadings.        In  the  present  case,  an     … Continue reading

Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 88. Will-Other Instilments-Rules of interpretation-Difference in-Inconsistent clauses in will-Later shall prevail over earlier. Legal Maxims : Maxim “cum duo inter sc pugnantia reperiuntur in testamento ultimum ratum est”-Meaning of. This petition has been filed on the ground that the Kerala High Court has not properly interpreted the will in question. =Dismissing the petition, this Court HELD : 1. The rules of interpretation of a “Will” are different from the rules which govern the interpretation of other documents say, for example, Sale Deed or a Gift Deed or a Mortgage Deed or, for that matter, any other instrument by which interest in immovable property is created. While in these documents if there is any inconsistency between earlier or the .subsequent part or specific clauses Inter-se contained therein, the earlier part will prevail over the latter as against the rule of interpretation applicable to a Will under which the subsequent part, clause or portion prevails over the earlier part. [37-A-B] Ramachandra Shenoy and Anr. \. Mm. Hilda Brite and Ors., AIR (1964) SC 1323; Named Lai v. Gokul and Ors., AIR (1976) SC 794 and Ramakrihorc Lal and Anr. v. Kamalnarayan, AIR (1963) SC 890, referred to. 2. A Will may contain several clauses and the latter clause may be inconsistent with the earlier clause. In such a situation, the last intention of the testator is given effect to and it is on this basis that the latter clause is held to prevail over the earlier clause. This is regulated by the well known maxim “cum duo inter sc pugnantia reperiuntur in testarnento ultimum ratum est” which means that if in a Will there are two inconsistent provisions, the latter shall prevail over the earlier. This principle is also contained in Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, However, this rule of interpretation can be invoked only if different clauses cannot be reconciled. [37-C-E; 38-A] Hammond v, Trehame, [1938] 3 All England Reports 308 and Rameshwar v. Balraj, AIR (1935) PC 187, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition No. 4597 of 1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 6.11.89 of the High Court of Kerala in S.A. No. 750/80-G. K,V. Viswana than for M.T. George for the Petitioner. S. Balakrishnan and S, Prasad for the Respondent. =1995 AIR 2491, 1995( 3 )Suppl.SCR 35, 1995( 5 )SCC 444, 1995( 5 )SCALE23 , 1995( 7 )JT 164

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 4597 of 1990 PETITIONER: KAILVELIKKAL AMBUNH1 (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. RESPONDENT: H.GANESH BHANDARY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/08/1995 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH & S. SAGHIR AHMAD JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 35 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S, SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The only ground on which … Continue reading

Revocation of the gift deed – whether the gift in question had become complete under Section 123 of the TP Act? It is seen from the recitals of the gift deed that Motilal Gopalji gifted the property to the respondent. In other words, It was a conditional gift. There is no recital of acceptance nor is there any evidence in proof of acceptance. Similarly, he had specifically stated that the property would remain in his possession till he was alive. Thereafter, the gifted property would become his property and he was entitled to collect mesne profits in respect of the existing rooms throughout his life. The gift deed conferred only limited right upon the respondent-donee. The gift was to become operative after the death of the donor and he was to be entitled to have the right to transfer the property absolutely by way of gift or he would be entitled to collect the mesne profits. It would thus be seen that the donor had executed a conditional gift deed and retained the possession and enjoyment of the property during his life time. The recitals in the cancellation deed is consistent with the recitals in the gift deed. He had expressly stated that the respondent had cheated him and he had not fulfilled the conditions subject to which there was an oral understanding between them. Consequently, he mentioned that the conditional gift given to him was cancelled. He also mentioned that the possession and enjoyment remained with him during his life time. He stated, “I have to execute immediately this deed of cancelling the conditional gift deed between us. Therefore I hereby cancel the conditional gift deed 15-5-65 of Rs.9000/- in words rupees nine thousand presented at the Serial no. 2153 on 15-5-65 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Baroda for registration. Therefore, the said conditional gift deed dated 15-5-65 is hereby cancelled and meaningless. The property under the conditional gift has not been and is not to be transferred in your name.: Thus he expressly made it clear that he did not hand over the possession to the respondent nor did the gift become complete during the life time of the donor. Thus the gift had become ineffective and inoperative. It was duly cancelled. The question then is: whether the appellant would get the right to the property? It is not in dispute that after the cancellation deed dated June 9, 1965 came to be executed, duly putting an end to the conditional gift deed dated May 15, 1965, he executed his last will on May 17, 1965, and died two days thereafter.

PETITIONER: NARAMADABEN MAGANLAL THAKKER Vs. RESPONDENT: PRANJIVANDAS MAGANLAL THAKKER & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/09/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court made in FA No. 421/74 on September … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,848,829 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,901 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com