After applying the rule that all the contemporaneous documents are to be read together, to discern the true purport of the contract, Supreme Court said that the parties intended assignment of the debt, i.e., the rents payable.
by Govinda Asawa† and Pranay Agarwal††
Reported by Hemang Mankar
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7)(a) — Award of interest: Principles clarified relating to validity of award of interest, when
Calcutta High Court remanded the eviction case to First Appellate Court on finding that the alleged construction was outside the tenancy property.
Criminal Law — Criminal Trial — Circumstantial Evidence — Generally: Principles reiterated relating to essential conditions that must be fulfilled before conviction
by Anushka PS†
Supreme Court said that the entry of the appellant over part of the suit property is simply as a licencee of the respondent. He does not continue to occupy it in the capacity of the owner. Thus, the licence having been terminated, he has no right to remain in possession but to restore possession to the person having rightful possessory title over it.
Madras High Court said that after divorce when the spouses have ceased to be husband and wife, proprietary right of both the spouses also get affected.
Supreme Court said that as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act.
Placing its reliance on Bhurey Khan v Yaseen Khan 1995 Supp (3) SCC 331, the Bench stated that the suit will not abate for the reason of non-substitution of all legal representatives of the deceased if the suit was substantially represented.
Kerala High Court held that once loan is repaid, the bank is not entitled to withhold the title deed merely on the grounds that the petitioner has transferred the property during the subsistence of mortgage.
While dealing with a suit for execution of sale deed of property filed in 2014, which was allegedly bought in 1992 through oral agreement, the Gurgaon District Court found the same based on forged and fabricated documents and refused to allow the claim.
In a suit property where father executed a release deed for relinquishment of rights for valuable consideration, Supreme Court held that the effect of principle of estoppel cannot be warded off by appellants claiming through their father whose conduct generated this estoppel.
Madras High Court said that Rule 55-A is delegated legislation which cannot go beyond the scope of the Parent Act viz., the Registration Act as well the Transfer of Property Act which is the substantive law governing the transfer of immovable properties. Hence, it is held that the first proviso is clearly ultra vires and unconstitutional.
by Rakshit Agarwal†
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court, wherein it has set aside the
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 78
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that in cases disclosing deliberate defiance and elective non-performance