Trace Your Case

Categories
General Rules of Transfer

Muhammad Raza v. Abbas Bandi Bibi

MATHAI V. JOSEPH MARY

Mathai v. Joseph Mary (2015) 5 SCC 622

ISSUE:

  • Whether Sughra Bibi’s power of alienation is valid and legally enforceable?

RULE:

  • Person allowed by way of family arrangement to take property on condition that it should not be alienated to stranger Such condition held not repugnant to law.

FACTS:

  • Sughra Bibi brought a suit against her cousin Afzal Husain, claiming a half-share in certain immovable properties in Oudh which had been entered in his name at the post mutiny settlement. The litigation ended in a compromise upon which a decree was passed.
  • The compromises were by the way marriage between both parties in the next month with few other conditions.
  • Afzal Hussain thereafter duly married Sughra Bibi and died in 1872 childless, his first wife Fatima Begum having predeceased him in 1871.
  • Sughra Bibi took possession of her share in the property but had sold or mortgaged it all before her death. Her transferees remained in undisturbed possession for nearly twelve years after her death.
  • The respondent filed a suit against the appellant having sughra bibi’s two-thirds share property regarding alienations.
  • The respondent s case was that under the compromise Sughra Bibi took only a life estate without the power of alienation and that on her death the half-share passed to her heirs, of whom the respondent in right of her mother Zainab Bibi, the sister of Afoul Husain, was one, her share is two thirds.
  • The learned Judge, after a detailed but not very informing examination of the case law on the subject, held that the restriction imposed by the deed on the lady s power of alienation was invalid and inoperative.
  • An appeal was made to chief court.

HELD:

  • The chief court held that where a person has been allowed to take the property upon the express agreement that it shall not be alienated outside the family, those who seek to make title through a direct breach of this agreement can hardly support their claim by an appeal to the high sounding principles, such as justice, equity, and good conscience.
  • The terms of the compromise were binding, that the restriction as to alienation was only partial and that such a partial restriction was neither repugnant to law nor justice, equity, and good conscience.
Categories
Transfer Uncategorized

V. N. Sarin v. Ajit Kr. Poplai AIR 1966 SC 432

ISSUE:

Whether the partition of co-parcenary property among the coparceners under Hindu Law is a transfer within the meaning of S. 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and therefore, can it said to be "an acquisition by transfer" within the meaning of s. 14(6) of the Act?

RULE:

The partition of coparcenary property does not amount to transfer. The joint family members were enjoying the property rights and had an interest in the property beforehand. The division of coparcenary property is the division of rights among the coparceners, collectively into individual or specific rights.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Registration and Stamp Duty

Suraj Lamps Pvt. Ltd. v State of Haryana, 2011 (11) SC 438.

SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA

Suraj Lamps Pvt. Ltd. v State of Haryana, 2011 (11) SC 438.

ISSUE:

  • What is the validity of the Sale Agreement, the General Power of Attorney (GPA) and the Will?

RULE:

  • Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.
  • Thus a transfer of immovable property by way of sale could only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title, or interest in an immovable property can be transferred except to the limited right granted under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

FACTS:

  • The petitioner, is a company that bought land from the defendant Ramnath and his family by means of an agreement of sale, General Power of Attorney (GPA), and a will for consideration of Rs. 7, 16, 695.
  • After buying two and a half acres of land from Ramnath and his family, Petitioner agreed verbally to sell one acre to Dharamvir Yadav (ex-MLA). But before the land was sold, Dharamvir came in contact with Ramnath and his family who sold to the petitioner by the means of GPA and again sold Dharamvir the same two and a half acres land by the means of GPA.
  • Then Dharamvir illegally canceled the earlier GPA which was in favor of the petitioner. So, the petitioner claimed lodged a criminal complaint against Ramnath and his who sold the same land twice by the means of GPA for punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

HELD:

  • It was held that Immovable property could be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance, Transactions of nature of GPA sales or SA/GPA/WILL transfers did not convey title and did not amount to transfer, nor could they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property
  • SA/GPA/WILL transactions were not transfers or sales and that such transactions could not be treated as completed transfers or conveyances. They could be continued to be treated as an existing agreement of sale.
  • However, nothing prevented affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title. SA/GPA/WILL transactions could also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under Section 53A of the Act.
Categories
LEGALITY

Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. 

ISSUE:

Can the agreement between the parties said to be unconscionable and opposed to public policy?

Whether the injunction was reasonable?

RULE:

If the restraints on one's freedom to practice and indulge in any trade is reasonable then the restraint is valid and good. The restraints must not be harsh, one sided, unconscionable or against public policy.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
LEGALITY

Percept D’Markr v. Zaheer Khan, (2006) 4 SCC 277

ISSUE:

Whether the right of first refusal under Clause 31(b) of the permission agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent is void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 has been in restraint of trade.

RULE:

Putting a restriction on someone's freedom to enter into a contract is void. The restrictive covenant was negative in nature because it was forcing the respondent to do something.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
LEGALITY

Taylor v. Chester (1869) LR 4 QB 309

ISSUE:

Whether the plaintiff can recover the half of $50 dollars that was given by him to the defendant as security for enjoying the services provided by the latter?

RULE:

The principle, "in pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis" that had been founded upon the principles of public policy had been applied. It stated that the courts will not assist the plaintiff who has handed over money in pursuance of an immoral or illegal agreement or has paid over the money, fully knowing its nature.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
LEGALITY

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak and Co. and Another AIR 1997 SC 2049

ISSUE:

Whether the agreement between the parties was such that the it caused the respondent a restraint to trade?

RULE:

Section 28(b) of the ICA states that every agreement which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to that extent.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
LEGALITY

Sundara Gownder v. Balachandran AIR 1990 Ker 324

ISSUE:

Whether the plaintiff can realize his money back even though the object of the agreement defeated the provisions of the law?

RULE:

Section 23 of the ICA states that Consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law, or is fraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another. Also if the Court regards the consideration or object immoral or opposed to public policy, it will not be enforced and makes the agreement void.

As the agreement of which the object was unlawful being opposed to a statutory provision, the plaintiff cannot claim relief under Section 65 of the Contract Act.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
LEGALITY

Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42

ISSUE:

Whether Patel can recover the amount from the defendant even though it was given to do an illegal act?

RULE:

A claimant will be prevented from enforcing his claim to property because, it was paid to perform an illegal act, unless, not allowing his claim would be contrary to relevant public policy, or it would be disproportionate to not allow him to recover.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
TRESPASS TO PERSON AND RELATED MATTERS

Wilkinson v. Downton [1897] 2 QB 57

ISSUE:

Did the defendant do an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff?

Could a reasonable person foresee such consequences?

RULE:

It is difficult to imagine that such a statement, made suddenly and with apparent seriousness, could fail to produce grave effects under the circumstances upon any but an exceptionally indifferent person, and therefore an intention to produce such an effect must be imputed, and it is no answer in law to say that more harm was done than was anticipated, for that is commonly the case with all wrongs.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now