Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2001]250ITR542(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. In view of the order made by the Division Bench of this court on September 21, 1995, referring the matter to a larger Bench and in view of the order made by the Chief Justice on March 29, 2000, this matter is placed before this larger Bench.2. Before reverting to the question of law, in the instant case it would be most appropriate to refer to the facts of the case.3. There was a transaction of lease-hold rights in the property in question and not a sale of ownership rights. A document dated August 3, 1968, purporting to create only leasehold rights was admitted to be of no value as the transaction was entered into without the written consent of the owner of the building, i.e., the original lessor. It seems that after some time, the consent of the owner of the property, i.e., the original lessor was obtained and the lessee (the assessee) executed a lease deed on October 13, 1973, transferring lease-hold rights in favour of the transferee. The Tribunal has recorded a fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1990)32ITD148(Mad.)
1. This appeal by the Revenue relates to the assessment year 1982-83.This is a case where the assessee exchanged his landed property situated at Sivagiripatti Village measuring 1.21V2 acres for l/4th share in Radhakrishna Rice Mills situated at Railway Feeder Road, Palani. According to the Gift-tax Officer there was a deemed gift.Since the market value of the land came according to guideline figures to Rs. 3,03,750, whereas l/4th share in the Rice Mill was valued only at Rs. 1,07,500, the difference of Rs. 1,96,250 allowing statutory deduction of Rs. 5,000 was brought to tax.2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no taxable gift based on evaluation of the land value and the exchanged interest.The finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this regard is as under- I have gone through the argument placed by the authorised representative as well as the order of the Gift-tax Officer. I find that the Gift-tax Officer has fixed the value of plot in Survey No. 65...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)BomCR633; 2007(5)MhLj848
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 13th October, 1999 passed in Notice of Motion 1136 of 1998 in Suit No. 937 of 1998. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has made the Notice of Motion absolute, thereby has appointed a Receiver for the suit premises.2. The respondent No. 1 has filed Civil Suit claiming declaration that the plaintiff and the appellant herein, who is the defendant No. 1 in the suit are the owners in respect of shares bearing Nos. 306 to 310 and of the flat No. 3 on the second floor, and also of garage No. 17 on the ground floor of the building known as 'Skyscraper Building - B block, situate at Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai, and consequently for the partition of the suit property. Pending the hearing and disposal of the suit, the plaintiff took out the Notice of Motion, seeking an order of appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the suit property and also seeking relief of temporary injunction. By the impugned order, the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2005Cal60,2004(4)CHN511
Amitava Lala, J. 1. This is an application for revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore in Misc. Appeal No. 70 of 1999 dated 31st August, 2000 reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Midnapore in J. Misc. Case No. 32 of 1992 dated 21st May, 1999.2. The opposite party filed the pre-emption case against the petitioner herein in respect of .05 Decimals of land in plot No. 308 under Khatian No. 540 of Mouza-Inda, which was sold by the opposite party No. 2 in favour of the appellant. The opposite party No. 1 is owner of plot No. 310 measuring 21 decimals which is exclusively got by a strength of partition amongst the co-sharers dated 6th June, 1990 and the said plot No. 310 is adjacent to the suit land.3. The opposite party No. 1 contended that the property was not sold or transferred by the opposite party No. 2 by a sale d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1981All191
ORDERK.P. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of Sri P. C. Saxena, IAS, Member, Board of Revenue dated 26-4-1976 in Second Appeal No. 537 of 73-74 (District Jaunpur) Jangi v. Raia Ram.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that Pheral was the tenure-holder of the disputed land. He executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs-opposite parties on 21-9-1964 and he executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant petitioner on 15-9-1964, but the sale deed was registered on 23-10-1964. The contention of the plaintiff-respondents was that the defendant-petitioner had illegally trespassed over the disputed land, hence they had prayed for declaration and possession under Sections 229-B/209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.3. The claim of the plaintiff-respondent was contested by the defendant-petitioner on the ground that his possession was lawful and he was not liable to ejectment as claimed i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999MP70; 1999(1)MPLJ37
ORDER1. This revision petition has arisen out of an order dated 23-7-1997 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Vidisha. 2. The facts leading to the petition in short are that plaintiff-respondent No. I Miththu Lal filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging that he was the resident of village Basuriya, Tehsil Gyaraspur, Distt. Vidisha and was aged 85 years. He had no son. He had two daughters. He kept his younger daughter Kranti Bai and son-in-law Mahendra Singh at his house for looking after his cultivation on account of his old age. They lived there for 15-16 years. He had certain lands detailed in para 2 of the plaint. His son-in-law Mahendra Singh was living with him. His son-in,-law started quarrelling and had also beaten him for sometime. There was an enmity going on. Hence it was difficult for him to livc in the village. Defendant No. I started helping him. Defendants 2 to 8 were friends of defendant No. 1. He had faith on them. He had kept Bhu-Adhikar Pustika with de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1938Cal417
Derbyshire C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Dacca made on 27th May 1935, wherein he declared a certain mortgage deed executed by the insolvent to be void as against the receiver, first, as a fraudulent or undue preference under Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act and, secondly, under the provisions of Section 53 of the same Act. The insolvent, Brindaban Chandra Das Basak, resided and carried on business as a cloth dealer in Dacca. In addition to having his business, he had a certain quantity of private property in the form of land and houses. Prior to 1931, his affairs seemed to have become somewhat difficult and he was undoubtedly short of money. On 23rd February 1931, he executed a deed whereby he purported to transfer some of his property to debutter purposes. On 11th March 1931, he executed the mortgage deed which is now in question. This deed was registered on 23rd March 1931. On 16th June 1931, some creditors filed a petition in insolvency against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1923Mad282; 73Ind.Cas.206
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. The facts of this case are that one Vaithilingam Pillai made a deed of gift of certain property on the 9th of September 1891, and it has been found as a fact--and that finding is accepted by the appellant-that that deed of gift was handed over to the donee on the day of execution. Next day the donor adopted a son, the present appellant. After the adoption the deed of gift was registered on the 15th of September 1891.2. It is now contended that, as the adoption took place before the registration and on adoption the adoptee, according to Hindu Law, is in the same position as a child born to the adopter, his rights to this property had intervened and the gift is,, therefore, void. Under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, (corresponding to Act III of 1877) Section 47, 'a registered document operates from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.' Under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad396
(1) This second appeal is sought to be preferred against the decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in A. S. No. 104 of 1955 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Satur in O. S. No. 272 of 1950.(2) The facts are short. The suit property belonged to the joint family of the second defendant and his son Kanga Arumugham Pillai. Sale deeds were got executed from the wastrel son Arumugham in favour of defendants 1 and 3 during the lifetime of the father falsely stating in the documents that the father is insane. It has been held that the sale deed executed by the father in favour of the Plaintiff is valid and therefore the half share of the father goes out of the picture. In regard to the rival sale deeds executed by the son in favour of defendants 1 and 3, the first defendant purchased the suit property under Ex. B-4 dated 17-6-1950, which was registered on 26th June 1950. D. Ws. 2, 3 and 7 spoke to the execution and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008(4)CTC507; (2008)5MLJ68
M. Jaichandren, J.1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Villupuram, dated 08.08.2001, made in A.S. No. 101 of 2000, confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, dated 14.08.2000, made in O.S. No. 522 of 1996.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are hereinafter described as plaintiff and the defendants, respectively, as dealt with by the trial Court.3. The second defendant in O.S. No. 522 of 1996 is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein had filed the suit before the District Munsif Court, Villupuram, in O.S. No. 522 of 1996, stating that the first defendant therein was the owner of the suit property. As such, he had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, on 02.01.1993, for a valid consideration of Rs. 67,000/-. Since 02.01.1993 and 03.01.1993 were holidays, the sale deed was agreed to be registered on ...
Tag this Judgment!