Legal Reference Library

The SUPREME COURT in Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam VS Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi & Anr, while referring to the judgment in Saheb Khan vs. Mohd. Yousufuddin & Ors., held that it is not the material irregularity that alone is sufficient for setting aside of the sale. The applicant has to go further and establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the material irregularity or fraud, as the case may be, has resulted in causing substantial injury to the applicant in conducting the sale. It is only then the sale so conducted could be set aside under Order 21 Rule 90(2) of the Code.

In Mother Hospital Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT, the Supreme Court held that We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Building which was constructed by the firm belonged to the firm. Admittedly it is an immovable property. The title in the said immovable property cannot pass when its value is more than Rs.100/- unless it is executed on a proper stamp paper and is also duly registered with the sub-Registrar. Nothing of the sort took place. In the absence thereof, it could not be said that the assessee had become the owner of the property. As is clear from the plain language of the Explanation, it is only when the assessee holds a lease right or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by the assesee on the construction of any structure or doing of any work in or in relation to and by way of renovation or extension of or improvement to the building and the expenditure on construction is incurred by the assessee, that assessee would be entitled to de...

The Supreme Court, in V Rajendran vs Annasamy Pandian, has held that the defect in the survey number of the suit property will constitute to be a “formal defect” within the meaning of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) (a) of Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs, in the instant case, had filed the suit describing the suit property as Survey No.192/9 but the respondents are said to have transferred the patta for the suit property settling as Survey No.192/14. The application for withdrawal of the suit in terms of Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) CPC was allowed. But the high court reversed the said order of trial court. The plaintiffs approached apex court.

In CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd, the issue before the Tribunal was whether Section 50C of the Act would be applicable to transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. The Tribunal followed its decision in Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (ITA No.3051/Mum/2010) decided on 13 May 2011 which held that Section 50C is not applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. On appeal by the department to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held dismissing the appeal:

A hiba of an undivided share in property which is capable of division is invalid. Exceptions to the rule are: where the gift is made by one co-heir to the other; where the gift is of share in a zamindari or taluka; where gift is of a share in freehold property in a large commercial town, and where gift is of share in a land company. While gift of immovable property is not complete unless the donor parts with the possession and donee enters into possession but if the property is in occupation of tenants, gift can be completed by delivery of title deed or by request to tenants to attorn to the donee or by mutation. Gift of property which is capable of division is irregular but can be perfected and rendered valid by subsequent partition or delivery. [Khursida Begum v. Mohd. Farooq, (2016) 4 SCC 549]

Narayan Vs. Babasaheb & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3486 of 2016 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15966 of 2012] N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is before us aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dated 5.10.2011 in Second Appeal No.213 of 2004 wherein and whereby the High Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the Courts below. 3. This Court, while issuing notice on 27th April, 2012, has passed the following order: "Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable in ten weeks limited to the question as to whether the Suit filed in the year 1989 with regard to the sale deed dated January 20, 1982 was within limitation. Dasti, in addition to the ordinary process. In the meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the property which is subject matter of the sale deed dated January 20, 1982." 4. In the light of the order passed by this Court on 27.04.2012, we...

In a collaboration agreement between the holder of land and the developer, there need not exist a sale of the property. The income tax authorities cannot assume there is a transfer and order compulsory pre-emptive purchase under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act. This provision intends to prevent tax evasion by undervaluation of property. In this judgment delivered by the Supreme Court last fortnight, Unitech Ltd vs Union of India, the building company had an agreement with Vidarbha Engineering Industries, lessee of land received from the Nagpur Improvement Trust, to raise a commercial complex. The builder will get 78 per cent of the developed area and the lessee will retain 22 per cent as consideration. The revenue authorities issued a show cause notice to Unitech accusing it of undervaluation of property. The Bombay High Court dismissed the challenge of Unitech, leading to the appeal. The Supreme Court stated that the tax authority as well as the high court made decisions on wrong ...

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1566  of  1991 PETITIONER: ADCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: DAULAT AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/09/2001 BENCH: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Phukan The question then arises as to what is meant by suit for land. This expression has been interpreted by different High Courts as well as the Federal Court. In His Highness Shrimant Maharaj Yashvantrav Holkar of Indore Vs. Dada Bhai Cursetji Ashburner [1890 (14) I.L.R. Bombay 353] a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that a suit for specific performance would not fall within the meaning of that expression. There the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to mortgage certain immovable property. The agreement was made in Bombay between the parties on January 8, 1883. The Divisional Court held, it had jurisdiction and granted decree. On appeal a Division Bench referred to an earlier judgment of that court in Yenkoba Balset Kasar Vs. Rambhaji (9 Bombay...

1) Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass AIR  1963  SC  1405 2) (Kunwar)  Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swarup AIR 1926 P.C. 1 3) Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills and Others v. Tata  Air  Craft  Limited 1969 (3) SCC 522 4) Delhi  Development  Authority  v.  Grihstrapana  Cooperative  Group Housing Society Ltd. 1995  Supp  (1)  SCC  751 5) V. Lakshmanan v. B.R. Mangalgiri and others (1995) Suppl.  (2)  SCC 33 6) Housing Urban Development Authority and another  v.  Kewal  Krishan Goel  and  others  (1996)  4  SCC  249 7) Videocon  Properties  Ltd.  v.  Dr.  Bhalchandra  Laboratories and others (2004) 3 SCC 711 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                   ...

territorial jurisdiction The question, therefore, is as to whether present case is covered by clause  (a) or (d) of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the one hand or proviso thereof is applicable and therefore, provisions of Section 20 of the Code can also be invoked. relief sought by the plaintiff was for specific performance of agreement respecting immovable property coupled with relief to deliver possession to him, suit was covered by clause (d) of Section 16 of the Code and proviso had no application.  25. In the present case the plaintiff has not prayed for decree of mandatory injunction limiting to the execution of the lease deed. Had it been so, one would have queried as to whether, in the absence of any relief for possession, principle of K.G. Ringshia (supra) should be applied or that of Vipul Infrastructure (supra). Here, the plaintiff specifically asked for mandatory injunction against the defendants "to take all consequential steps for allowin...