Anonymous
06 November 2009 at 13:26
I filed a suit for specific performance against agreement to sell dated 27.06.87. Ex-party decree was past with direction to deposit remaining sale consideration of Rs. 95000/- with in 30 days. Suit for execution of sale deed was filed on 04-01-91, after notice and publication commissioner was pointed to registered sale deed which was registered on 06-09-91. Ex party decree was set aside on 12-11-94 and application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was given on 15/05/92. In which no prayer for cancellation of sale deed. Due to which sale deed till date is not cancelled by the civil court.Possesion is of land is still with me.
On the other hand after setting aside the ex party decree the case was re-trialed and i lost upto SPL in the apex court.
Now question arises that my sale deed is registered document and having legal value which has not been cancelled by any civil court so far. According to apex court judgment sale deed is a registered document and required to be cancelled by the civil court through declaration within the periods of three years as per limitation act 1963 article 59 and 113.
But on the other side opposite party claims that after the setting aside the exparty decree, the sale deed automatically become invalid or void. Please clarify,” that can a registered document become invalid automatically”?
On 15-05-1992 when the application for setting aside was submitted – the relief for -taking possession---cancellation of sale deed ---and setting aside ex-party decree were available, but he sought only setting aside ex-party as court fees was involved in other reliefs. Can the remaining relief are barred under ORDER 2 RULE 2 CPC and limitation and can not claim at this point of time.
Anonymous
06 November 2009 at 13:09
I filed a suit for specific performance against agreement to sell dated 27.06.87. Ex-party decree was past with direction to deposit remaining sale consideration of Rs. 95000/- with in 30 days. Suit for execution of sale deed was filed on 04-01-91, after notice and publication commissioner was pointed to registered sale deed which was registered on 06-09-91. Ex party decree was set aside on 12-11-94 and application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was given on 15/05/92. In which no prayer for cancellation of sale deed. Due to which sale deed till date is not cancelled by the civil court.Possesion is of land is still with me.
On the other hand after setting aside the ex party decree the case was re-trialed and i lost upto SPL in the apex court.
Now question arises that my sale deed is registered document and having legal value which has not been cancelled by any civil court so far. According to apex court judgment sale deed is a registered document and required to be cancelled by the civil court through declaration within the periods of three years as per limitation act 1963 article 59 and 113.
But on the other side opposite party claims that after the setting aside the exparty decree, the sale deed automatically become invalid or void. Please clarify,” that can a registered document become invalid automatically”?
On 15-05-1992 when the application for setting aside was submitted – the relief for -taking possession---cancellation of sale deed ---and setting aside ex-party decree were available, but he sought only setting aside ex-party as court fees was involved in other reliefs. Can the remaining relief are barred under ORDER 2 RULE 2 CPC and limitation and can not claim at this point of time.
queryking
06 November 2009 at 10:54
Dear most experts,
i have availed the loan from a finace company to purchase a four wheeler about 3 years back, they have taken my singnature to some forms(may be agreemnt), the contensts not disclosed to me, it is not explaned to me, they have taken 36 balnk cheques of my account, i regularly paid the installments(in some month little late than the fixed date), as per my calcutaltion i am due about Rs.40,000/-, but last month they have issued a notice demanding 1)amount outstanding Rs.80,000/- 2) future principal loan Rs.85059/-(What is future principal loan?) 3) Penallty on closure Rs 3,000/- 4) intervening fiance charges Rs.467/-
5) Additianl Finance Charges 43,000/- (what is additinal finance charges?) 6)Cheque return charges 4,500/-(event though few of the cheques are returned as soon after coming to know about the returning of the che cheque i paid the amount throgh the DD and i have the xerox copies of the DD),i ahve not replied to the demand notice.
few days back they sent a notice stating that there is a dispute between me and the fainace company hence they are referring the matter to sole arbitrator at Tamil nadu( it is not my native state) the transaction took place in my state. what course of action i have to take?
V.V.RAMDAS
05 November 2009 at 22:52
Dear friends,
Codified Hindu Law lays down that its provisions do not apply to the memmbers of the Scheduled tribes comming with the meaning of clause (25) of Aricle 366 of the Constitution . Therefore under which law the tribals are guided ? Please do provide recent supreme court rulings on both (for & aginst)the sides.
V.V.RAMDAS
05 November 2009 at 22:50
Dear friends,
Codified Hindu Law lays down that its provisions do not apply to the memmbers of the Scheduled tribes comming with the meaning of clause (25) of Aricle 366 of the Constitution . Therefore under which law the tribals are guided ? Please do provide recent supreme court rulings on both (for & aginst)the sides.
Anonymous
05 November 2009 at 16:45
if a person 'A' nominates to his holding of shares and debentures favouring person 'B' who is not a relative of 'A' but is just a friend then in the event of death of 'A' what is the position of nomination.
Anonymous
05 November 2009 at 16:37
Respected Sir,
Sub: - ADVERSE POSSESSION.
DHR/plaintiff and JDRs/Defendants filed a compromise petition in lower court. As per this compromise the JDRs are agreed to give some land to DHR and accordingly, the JDRS had handed over the physical possession of the land to the DHR and the same was recorded in the said compromise decree. And it is further recorded in the said compromise decree that “in case the JDRS fails to register the Sale Deed in favour of the DHR, the DHR at liberty to get the same executed through this court”. A compromise was recorded in this E.P on 21-02-1985.
But I did not get the registration though this court and executed the same through Mandal Revenue Officer as there is a specific Act of the Andhra Pradesh Government. As aggrieved by the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the JDRS have preferred an appeal before the appellate authority contending that no notice as required, was not served on them, before passing the order. Even the DHR have succeeded in all Revisional authorities carried out by the JDRS and as well as the High court of A.P. When the case was carried out a Writ Petition before the Division Bench by the JDRS, the Hon’ble Division bench has quashed all the orders passed below, on the ground that the Mandal Revenue Officer was not supposed to entertain this case and has not followed the proper procedure. As aggrieved by the Orders of the Division bench, the DHR preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court, which is pending.
So I want to clarity.
1. The JDrs have not contending about the compromise decree.
2. As per the compromise decree the DHR is in possession since 21-02-1985.
3. So dhr was in Adverse possession or not?
4. Since the JDRS are not contending about my possession, Shall I have a right over the said lands? Or otherwise who are the real owners as of now.
Plz. suggest me suitably.
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Intentional Negligence and malafide conduct of Shopkeeper
A friend of mine living in Andrewsganj, New Delhi approached me with a complain that one Madrasi Shop selling retail items has a pet cat, which moves around freely, licking milk pouches, urinating and brushing its fur on open atta bags, open sugar bags, open rice bags( six bags of different rice) and other open edible items. On complaining about this state of matter to the shopkeepers, who showed his South India attitude against all North Indians did not care and brush aside this complain saying, this is our pet cat it can do anything, we are not interested in the customers. Unfortunately, many customers were taken to ill after consuming the open edible items from his shop but were not aware of the fact of the pet cat of the shop as detailed above. My friend complained to MCD health department and the local police to book this shopkeeper for such malafide attitude towards his ignorant customers who were taken to ill because of his arogant and malafide attitude towards the north Indians.Police told him to complain to MCD health department and not to Police and returned his complain letter. In MCD health department, no body is interested in this complain hence my friend is in dismay and horrified at Indian Law of the Land. Could any of our learned friends tell my friend as to where to file a written complain for such abhorant act of the shopkeeper in question, as severe diseases can take place by and from this cat in question. Your answer will help and releive many innocent customers who had been taken to ill and at danger from severe illness.