Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Thankamma George VS Lilly Thomas...
Checking relevance for DAHIBEN VS ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA)(D) THR LRS...
Checking relevance for Thota Ganga Laxmi VS Government of Andhra Pradesh...
Checking relevance for Yogendra Prasad Singh (Dead) through LRs VS Ram Bachan Devi...
2023 5 Supreme 428 : A unilateral cancellation deed is not binding on a party who did not consent to it. In the context of a registered Sale Deed, the cancellation of the sale deed cannot be effected unilaterally through a cancellation deed; instead, the remedy lies in invoking Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to seek cancellation of the Sale Deed. The Trial Court held that the Deed of Cancellation dated 15th June 1967 was invalid because it was executed unilaterally without the consent of the plaintiff, and thus could not cancel the Sale Deed in its entirety. The court emphasized that once a registered Sale Deed is executed and registered, with recitals regarding payment of consideration and delivery of possession, the sale is complete even if the full sale price is not paid, and the sale cannot be cancelled in its entirety unless through a legal remedy like Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.Checking relevance for Lakhpat Rai Juneja VS Union Of India...
2000 1 Supreme 570 : Under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the registration of a conveyance deed does not cause evacuee property to cease being evacuee property. The Central Government retains the power under Section 33 to cancel a transfer and sale deed even after registration, if the transfer was based on an illegality. The cancellation of the transfer and sale deed in execution proceedings is valid and justified, as the Central Government''''s power under Section 33 is residuary and not rendered nugatory by the completion of the conveyance deed.Checking relevance for Tukaram Ramchandra Mane VS Rajaram Bapu Lakule...
1998 4 Supreme 127 : An annulment order under Section 37(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, does not wipe out a prior declaration by the Insolvency Court that a sale deed is null and void (i.e., non est), as such a declaration constitutes an ''''act done by the Court'''' and is therefore saved by the first part of Section 37(1). This means that even after annulment of insolvency proceedings, the cancellation of a sale deed previously declared void in insolvency proceedings remains valid and enforceable, including in execution proceedings.Checking relevance for Patel Kantilal Parshottamdas (D) VS Jitendra Kumar Nanjibhai Mistry (D) Through LRS...
Checking relevance for Sherly D''''Souza, W/o. Denzil D''''Souza VS Marie Celine D''''Souza, D/o. Late Duncan Fernandez...
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1106 : A cancellation deed executed during the pendency of a suit before a Civil Court is illegal under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which prohibits any transfer of property while proceedings are pending except under the authority of the Court. Furthermore, a cancellation deed is only valid if it is declared so by a competent court; otherwise, both the cancellation deed and its registration are void and non est. The Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of A.P. [2010 (15) SCC 207] held that a sale deed can only be cancelled by a competent court, and registration of a cancellation deed without such a declaration is a meaningless transaction.Checking relevance for Kakkoth Radha VS Bathakkathalakkal Batlak Musthaffa...
Checking relevance for D. Devi VS Inspector General of Registration...
2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3288 : The court held that the unilateral cancellation of a Settlement Deed, which was part of a larger transaction involving a Sale Deed, was invalid. The cancellation was effected through a Cancellation Deed executed by the senior citizen (third respondent), but the court ruled that Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act does not permit a senior citizen to unilaterally cancel a transfer instrument. The court emphasized that Section 23 allows a senior citizen to approach the Tribunal for a declaration that the instrument of transfer is void, but not to unilaterally cancel it. The court further quashed the cancellation deed and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) that upheld it, noting that the RDO improperly entertained the petition while the Writ Court was already seized of the matter concerning the validity of the cancellation. The court also clarified that the ownership of the property continued to vest in the appellant, and restrained the appellant''''s father from alienating, encumbering, or otherwise dealing with the property.
