Section Case Law Case Facts/Judgement

No./Topic
Doctrine of Holland v Hodgson If the chattel is resting on the land merely on
Fixtures its own weight, the presumption is that it is
movable property
S.P.K.N.Subramanian Firm v M. Regard has to be made not merely to the
Chidambaram nature of attachment by which a thing is
attached but also to the circumstances in
which it came to be fixed.
Duncans Industries Ltd v State of To determine whether machinery attached
UP to the easth is movable or immovable the
court will have to take into consideration the
intention of the parties if it is for temporary
or permanent.
Section 3 Girja Datt v Gangotri The two persons who had identified the
testator at the time of registration of the will
and had appended their signatures at the
foot of the endorsement by the sub registrar
were not attesting witnesses as signature
were not put “animo attestandi”
Abhinash Chandra v Dasrath Malo A person who had put his name under the
word “scribe” was not attesting witness
Sant Lal v Kamala Prasad Each witness must sign only after the
execution is complete otherwise it will not
be a valid attestation.
Kundanlal v Rafi Begam The attestation is valid if the purdarshani
lady can see the witness from behind the
curtain.
Constructive Hudson v Viney Gross negligence does not mean mere
Notice carelessness but means carelessness of
aggravated form.
H Anraj v Government of Tamil Lottery tickets are both goods and actionable
Nadu claims
N Ramain v Nagraj Transfer can only be made between or
amongst living persons.
Pramatha Nath v Pradyuman An idol is not a living person and therefore
property cannot be transferred to it.
Section 6 Karunanda Gounder v Once the partition stood conceded and the
Muthuswamy Gounder property had fallen in share of respondent
and plea of being lunatic is rejected then co
owner has no right to resist possession of
transferee.
Subba Reddy v Curuva Reddy A completed sale in favour of a minor is valid
and conveys title to him when no obligation
to be performed by him in outstanding.
Section 10 Attwater v Attawater If the power of alienation is exercisable in
favour of a class of person, it would be
construed as partial restraint.
Section 11 Tulk v Moxhay(exception is based The transferor may impose conditions
on the ruling given in this restraining the enjoyment of land if such
 judgement) conditions are for the benefit of the
transferor.
Section 13 Whitby v Mitchell(not followed in Rule against double possibility was
present times) recognised-If an interest in the reality is
given to an unborn person, any remainder to
his issue is void, together with all subsequent
limitations
Section 26 Ambika Charan v Sasitara A condition subsequent requiring residence
in a particular house has beenheld to be
valid
Section 35 Cooper v Cooper A person cannot be put to election, for he
has only a personal claim for payment by his
debtor.
Section 38 Kaveri v Permeswari The right to receive maintenance referred in
the section is not the right of getting such
maintenance only in the first instance it also
includes the right to receive enhanced
maintenance in future.
Section 40 Lalji Jetha v Kalidas Devchand A contract for sale does not create an
interest in land, but creates a personal
obligation of fiduiciary nature, therefore it
can be enforced not only against the vendor
but also against a volunteer and a purchaser
for consideration with notice.
Section 41 Jayadayal Poddar v Bibi Hazara Following consideration to be taken for
determination of ostensible owner
Source of the purchase money and nature of
possession after the purchase
Relationship btwn the parties
Custody of the title deeds
Ramcoomar Kondoo v Macqueen Law incorporated in section 41 is based on
this case
Section 43 Sri Narayan Chandra Sahu v Dipali If the fact of defective title of the transferor
Mukherjee is known to both the parties there is
collusion and section 43 cannot apply.
B Narayanswami Raju v No estoppel can arise by reason of false
Krishnamoorthy Mudalier statement where the truth is known to both
the parties.
Section 52 Thomson Press Ltd. v Nanak The doctrine of Lis Pendence does not annul
Builders and Investors Pvt Ltd. the transaction. It merely makes such
transfer subject to the resulting rights if the
parties after the decision.
Section 53 Musahur Sahu v Hakim Lal Transfer of property by a debtor in
preference of the other is not a fraudulent
transfer with intent to delay the interest of
the creditor.
Abdul Sukoor v Arji Papa Rao Attching the property which debtor has
transferred fraudulently is sufficient
evidence of his intention to avoid the
transfer.
 Prabodh Kumar Das v Dantamara Equity of part performance in India does not
Tea Co Pvt Ltd. give any right of action to the transferee who
is in possession of the property.
Section 58 K j Nothan v Maruthi The physical delivery of title deeds can take
place outside the towns specified.
Section 60 Ram Kishan v Sheo Ram The right to ssek redemption does not arise
on the date of mortgage. It arises on the
date when the mortgagor pays or deposits in
court the mortgage money or the balance
amount
Clog on Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat A collateral advantage is a clog only if:
Redemption and Cold Storage Company  It was unfair and unconscionable
 It was in the nature of a penalty
clogging the equity of redemption
 It was inconsistent with legal or
equitable right to redeem
Ambu Nair v Kelu Nair The right of redemption cannot be
extinguished otherwise than by act of the
parties
Section 62 K. Variath v PCK Haji Where a usufructuary mortgagor could not
receive possession on the basis of an oral
mortgage as it could not be proved for want
of registration, it was open to him to recover
possession on the strength of his title.
Section 81 Aldrish v Cooper Doctrine of Marshalling has been provided in
this case
Section 105 Ramchand v Lush It is not necessary that the term of the lease
should be for a fixed period if it is definite
Section 92 Gokuldas v Puranmal Leading case of Subrogation

Section 106 Shanti Prasad Devi v Shankar Mere acceptance of rents by lessor on expiry
Mehto of the period of lease would not amount to
assent to the continuance of lease.
Abdul Sattar V Rameshwar Where there out of several tenants certain
tenant receives notice in capacity of general
power of attorney holder on behalf of all
tenants there is service of notice on all the
tenants.
Section 111 Reghuram Rao v Eric P Mathias Section 111 itself requires that for the
feature of lease, the lessee should commit
breach of an express condition which must
provide that on breach thereof the lessor
my re enter.
Section 123 Gomtibai v Muttulal In the absence of written instrument by
donor, attestation by 2 witnesses,
registration of this instrument and
acceptance thereof by the done, the gift of
immovable property is not complete.