Case Laws Flashcards
(32 cards)
RC Cooper v UOI
property incl both corporeal and incorporeal things/rights
Shanta Bai v State of Bombay
Whether the right conferred on her is right over movable or immovable property? Held that a right to enter upon the land of another to carry a part of produce is an instance of profit a prendre therefore, it falls under immovable property. s3
State of Himachal Pradesh v Motilal Partap SIngh
Whether a contract to cut standing timber requires registration? It was held that there is no need to registration as it is a movable property. S3
Jagdish v. Mangal Pandey
Whether the 5 clumps of bamboo tress are movable or immovable? Since bamboo regenerates and is permanently attached to earth it is immovable property. s3
Oil & Natural gas corp ltd v SAW pipes
In construing a contract, the court must look into the words used in the contract. Unless they are such that one may suspect that they do not convey the intention properly/correctly. if the words are very clear the court cannot do much about the contract S.8
Viswanath v. Ram Raj
whatever is attached to the land is transferred S.8
Imperial Bank of India v Bengal National Bank
partition, release, and surrender are all part of transfer but don’t come under the restriction imposed by S. 9
Achammal v. Rajamanickam Karthikeyan
A sold a house to B with a condition that if he wishes to sell the property, A’s wife would have an option of purchasing the property at 10k but the value of the house is at 10L and therefore the condition was held to be invalid. S. 10
Shyamal Ranjan Mukherjee v. Nirmal Ranjan Mukherjee
Condition restricting absolute alienation to a transferee who is a deity is not void. S. 10
Tulk v Moxhay
Tulk sold land to x creating a equitable covenant on the land. x sold it someone else and later Moxhay bought it and built buildings in the property. defense: the covenant is only applicable to the first buyer but it was held to be invalid.
Sridhar v Revanna
A property was transferred by way of gift deed in favour of the donor’s grandson and thereafter to his sons. life interest for the grandson and absolute interest for his sons. the grandson sold the property and his sons contested the same. they were entitled to compensation S 13
Girish Dutt v Datadin
A makes a gift deed to B for life then to B’s male descendants absolutely, if no male descendants then to B’s daughter (invalid u/s 13). If n a single transfer, a partial transfer gets invalidated, the entire deed is void (S. 16).
Stanley v. leigh
Why do we need rule of perpetuity? to prevent properties from becoming inalienable S. 14
Muhammad Afzal v Gulam Quasim
It should be the part of the same transaction. after the death of nawab of tank. the govt gave chiefship to the 1st son and some money to the 2nd one.during the life of the nawab, he had transferred property to the 2nd son for his sustenance. the 2nd son cannot be asked to elect between the two as they’re both from different transfers. S. 35
Jones v Ogle
the expression doesnt include profits of partnership which accrue only after the adjustment of the account. S. 35
Prem Chand v Mokshoda Dehi
on receipt of the notice the tenant is under an obligation to pay each sharer his proportionate part of the rent. when a suit arises all the sharers are responsible together. S. 37
Hanooman Prasad v. Mst Babase
Power of manager for an infant heir, limited and qualified power to transfer i case of need for the benefit of the estate. duty of the transferee to inquire into the necessities. S. 38
Crystal Developers v Asha Late Ghose
Property transferred to a person through will, obtains a probate without asking the legal heirs. they allow him to represent to the developers. he sold the property to them. S. 41
Nanda Kishore Mehre v. Sushila Mehra
can claim the property back if the property was bought for the purpose of maintenance of wife or unmarried daughter. S. 41
Vijayan v. Sobhana
Wife and children donot have rifhts on the property of husband or parents. their rights are only against the person and the property and therefore the transfer cannot be questioned. S. 39.
Sarwan Singh v. Jagir Kaur
Wife living separately from husband, suit for maintenance, brother gift deed to prevent the maintenance clause- can charge against him, transfer is invalid
Raman Kutty Puroshothaman v. Amini kutty
maintenance suit pending, tris to sell the property to brother- HC- the charge for maintenance is proper and the brother is not a bonafide purchaser.
Paramanand Swain v. Rabindranath Swain
After partition, alienation of his share to a 3rd party cannot be questioned
Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain
Section 47 of the Transfer of Property Act applies, which states that when co-owners transfer a share in common property without specifying the exact portion, the transferred share is proportionally deducted from the co-owners’ respective shares.
The Court held that a co-owner has the right to transfer his undivided share in the property, but he cannot transfer a specific portion of the joint property unless partition has taken place.
The transferee only gets the rights of the transferor (co-owner) and becomes a co-owner with the remaining co-owners.
The transfer remains valid, but it does not affect the rights of the other co-owners, and the transferee cannot claim exclusive ownership of any specific part until partition occurs.
