Gift--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee.

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
RSA No.364 of 1981(O&M)
Makhan Singh
v.
Joginder Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 11/03/2010}
For the Appellant: Ms. Simran Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Gift--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee.
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.123--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee--Any wrong concession given by counsel of plaintiff/appellant before First Appellate Court cannot confer any title in favour of defendants pursuant to alleged gift which in eye of law is void ab initio and nonest. (Para 16 & 18)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.115--Estoppel--Wrong concession on question of law made by counsel is not binding on his client. (Para 17)

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882

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

Usufructuary mortgage--Right of redemption--Extinguishment of

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 470
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma
RSA No.1410 of 1984
Malkiat Singh
v.
Jagir Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 25/01/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Mortgage--Usufructuary mortgage--Cannot mature into ownership with passage of time.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.62--Mortgage--Usufructuary mortgage--Right of redemption--Extinguishment of--Whether usufructuary mortgage could mature into ownership with passage of time--No--In case of usufructuary mortgage where no time limit is fixed to seek redemption, the right to seek redemption would not arise on the date of mortgage but will arise on date when mortgagor pays or tenders to mortgagee or deposits in Courts mortgage money or balance thereof. (P.10 & 11)

Tenancy created by a mortgagee cannot out lived the term of mortgage

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
RSA No.1893 of 1984
Tarsem Chand & Ors.
v.
Smt. Ved Wati & Anr.
{Decided on 21/08/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. M. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. B. R. Gupta, Advocate.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.60--Mortgagee after getting the possession of land, leased out the same to defendant no.2--Clause 10 of lease deed prescribed that even after redemption the mortgagor could not evict him for a period of 12 years--Tenancy created by a mortgagee cannot out lived the term of mortgage--Preliminary decree was passed far back on 24.9.1981 for symbolic possession--Appellant directed to deposit the amount within six months as prescribed by trial Court and then pray for a final decree of possession by redemption--Finding of Court below to the extent that defendant no.2 would not liable for eviction on redemption set aside. (P.3 to 5)

Agreement to Sell--Specific performance--Protection to subsequent purchaser--Bonafide inquires--Bonafide purchaser for consideration

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
R.S.A. No. 3990 of 2007
Rajbir & Ors.
v.
Umed Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 11/08/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate.
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.41--Specific Relief Act, 1963--Agreement to Sell--Specific performance--Protection to subsequent purchaser--Bonafide inquires--Bonafide purchaser for consideration--Defendant no.3, father and guardian of defendants no. 1 & 2 entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute with the plaintiffs--He received Rs. One Lac as earnest money--The sale deed was to be executed and got registered after obtaining the necessary permission, from the Guardian Judge--Necessary permission was obtained on 05.05.1998--However, defendants No. 1 to 3, executed a sale deed of the suit land, in favour of defendants No. 4 and 5 (now appellants) on 25.05.98--The plaintiffs remained ever ready and willing to perform their part of the contract--Defendants no. 3 & 4 did not specifically pleaded in the written statement that they made bonafide enquiries, like a prudent person and after satisfying themselves, that the property, in dispute, was unencumbered and that no agreement to sell had been executed, in respect thereof, purchased the same, for valuable consideration, and in good faith--Inference, could be drawn that they came to know of the agreement to sell, in favour of the plaintiffs, in respect of the land, in dispute, yet they ventured to purchase the same, at their own risk, without making any bonafide enquiries--First Appellate Court was right in decreeing the suit. (P. 9)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100--Second appeal--Confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law--Legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble”--Findings of facts cannot be interfered with even if they are grossly erroneous. (P.14)
--------------