TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
S.41--Bonafide Transferee--Vendor was in possession of property as ostensible owner with consent of plaintiffs/respondent--Defendant, vendee at time of purchase examined revenue record where mutation of inherence was in favour of vendor--Transaction entered into by defendant was in good faith and for consideration--Will shown first time in suit--Defendant entitled to benefit of Section 41 of T.P. Act.; Tharu Ram v. Jatinde Singh & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 530
S.41--Specific Relief Act, 1963--Bonafide Purchaser--Specific performance--Agreement to sell--Specific stand taken by plaintiff/respondent no.1 that transaction of sale in favour of appellants was sham transaction to defeat rights of plaintiffs--It was specially pleaded that appellants are real brothers of vendor and sale deed in their favour could not affect legal of plaintiff to seek relief of specific performance--Appellant even did not claim an issue of bonafide purchasers for consideration--It cannot be said that appellants were bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Notice--Service of--Presumption--Termination of tenancy--Presumption of service, of a letter addressed at a correct address can be drawn in case it is not received back served or otherwise--Once a letter sent is received back with the remarks by the Postal Authorities, then it has to be decided on facts of each case whether service can be presumed or not.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Service of--Presumption--When letter is received back with report ‘Not Present’, no presumption of service can be drawn unless something more is proved by leading cogent evidence that it was in fact refusal--No such evidence led by plaintiff-appellant--Tenancy was not held to be terminated by valid notice.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Service of--Presumption--Notice returned with remarks ‘Not Present’--Plaintiff gave a suggestion that it was refused on date of dispatch itself--But no proof of refusal given nor any evidence led to prove this suggestion--Contention that service by certificate of posting could be presumed cannot be sustained when notice issued did not carry any date showing termination of tenancy.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Service of--Presumption--In case it is proved, that there is no role of the addressee in sending back the letter and the letter, is received back by the sender with the remarks ‘Not Present’ no presumption can be drawn of addressee’s service, as ‘the return’ itself shows that letter was actually not served--Learned trial court was not correct in recording that under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the notice is merely to be dispatched.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Mode of Service--Section 106 gives liberty to serve the notice, by post or tender or deliver it to the party or one of his family members or servant at his residence, and in case such tender and delivery is not practicable affix it at the conspicuous place of the property.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Termination of tenancy--Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties--Tenant not disputed rent note--In written statement filed in rent petition relationship of landlord and tenant admitted--Tenant estopped from challenging title of landlord.; Badrinath v. Gaushala Trust Society,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 534
S.106--Termination of tenancy--Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties--Neither tenant himself nor any other witness appeared to support of his pleadings--Allegations of tenants with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant remained unrebutted--Finding of fact by Courts below that there exists a relationship of between land lord and tenant--No interference.; Badrinath v. Gaushala Trust Society,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 534
