Anonymous
03 June 2010 at 18:24
One of the owners of the apartments I live who have a duplex aparment have encroached into the common area on the terrace claiming it to be to their balcony. Their sale deed does not show it as their balcony but as an open area.
I approached the AP high court and it has given a stay order not to construct. in spite of the order they constructed and a contempt case was filled.
They are trying to twist the facts and are saying that the construction was made before the courts stay order.
Recently, their appeal to regularize the disputed area under U/s 455-A of GHMC sct with the Greater Hyderabad Municipal commissioner has been rejected.
What should be the course of action that I should take to get the illegal , unauthorised and encroached area to be demolished.
They have good political connections and the GHMC is going slow on the issue.
Suneeta Yadav
03 June 2010 at 18:10
Hello All,
The above mentioned dispute is between my father-in-law (i.e. 1st Party) and his brother's sons (i.e. 2nd Party). The 2nd party constructed a room in which a pumping set was established which is in front of the house of the 1st party. The land belongs to gram samaj it was possessed since the time of anscesters of both the parties. Last year during the process of partition of property through Panchayat it was decided that the 2nd party will shift his pumping set and remove his construction work which is in front of the house of the 1st party, which creates disturbance to the 1st party. Against which the 1st party will pay him Rs.15000/- and leave some land which is in front of the 2nd party's house. The agreement was signed on stamp papers by both parties and the panchayat members. Now when the 1st party is paying the aforesaid sum the 2nd party has refused to take the money and also refused to shift his pumping set and construction work, saying that this amount is not adequate, they need Rs. 100000/- because you are paying the money too late. However, no time limit was mentioned in the agreement, what are the options left before the 1st party.
I would be grateful for the responses and any other feedback, I am thankful to all group members.
with regards.
suneeta yadav
Dushyant Pandya
03 June 2010 at 14:43
Lessee has paid all lease rent and/or fees on time and has followed all the required and applicable compliances during the lease period. Now, lessee has applied for renewal before expiry and government is not ready to renew the lease period stating that they required the leased property for other commercial purpose.
Please advice to renew the Lease.
anupam sharma
03 June 2010 at 13:32
the khewatdar whose land , not originally village common land in punjab but was so acquired by imposing cut on land of some khewatdars.The said land was not used for village common purposes for long thus collector directed it to be restored to the owners vide order dated year 1992 but somehow the khewatdars could not get the order implemented in their favour.Now they wish to get it implemented.the possession is with the khewatdars only.can the order detaed 1992 be implemented now??
Gopalkrishns
03 June 2010 at 13:08
Hi,
5 years ago, I bought a plot from a developer. Later I found out that the land is a revenue land(Bangloare gramathana) and he sold it to me without DC conversion. I have khatha and sale deed of the site. Also I paid taxes so far for the site. Off late, one of the previous owners filed a civil case stating that land had been sold(transaction happend 18 years ago)without minor's consent. The petition is filed by two daughters of the previous landlord and they were minor when it is sold. I would like to know the validity of this argument. What is the chance of them winning the case.
Many thanks/Gopal
Baskaran Kanakasabai
03 June 2010 at 12:23
If any expert has handled a case under LA Act,1894 in which the buyer has purchased land after 4(1) notification, kindly let me know.
m.kupparaju
03 June 2010 at 12:16
While executing the Family Partition deed by the family members viz., 2 brothers and 2 sisters where family property is divided into 4 equal shares between the members. Where 2 sisters have decided to release/ relinquish their shares in favour of their brothers without executing a separate Release Deed/Relinquish Deed, decided simply incorporating a clause in the partition deed stating that they have released/relinquished their share in the property in favour of their brothers without taking any consideration. Is this Partition deed is sufficient to get the katha transferred in favour of their brothers? Are they require a separate release deed/relinquish deed executed in their favour for valid transfer of katha in their names. please clarify.
Anonymous
03 June 2010 at 10:35
My in-law’s has got gift of a flat from her mama in lawful manner, which has been registered in her name with all legal formalities in the absence of mama's. Now he is no more in this world, Mama is not having any son, daughter or wife, but i am worrying about his nephew's. Can they create any legal problem? Could you please advice use to protect the property?
Regards,
joydeep chatterjee
02 June 2010 at 17:02
we are selling our ground floor for 22 lacs.
we (me,my mother and brother) are three share holder in the amount.how to distribute the amount within three of us?should we take the amount in three separate demand draft?is there any chance of fraud in demand draft may happen?i will be purchasing a apartment out of the sale proceedings.can i take other sharer's sale proceedings for purchasing of my flat? pls guide me.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
notice of a notification
According to Transfer of Properties Act,1882:
"a person is said to have notice" of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it.
Explanation I: Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration or, where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated:
PROVIDED that-
(1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), and the rules made thereunder,
(2) the instrument of memorandum has been duly entered or filed, as the case may be, in books kept under section 51 of that Act, and
(3) the particulars regarding the transaction to which the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept under section 55 of that Act.
Does it mean that the buyer of a land shall be said to have notice of any instrument (pertaining to any transaction relating to immovable property) provided it is registered duly in the registers of the ROD?
If that is so, notification under 4(1) is never registered in India, then how the buyer of a notified land shall be said to have notice of such notification?
Therefore will it be reasonable to conclude that a buyer of a notified land can be said to have had notice of a notification under 4(1) only if such notification is registered before he buys it.
A very meaningful logical extension of what is said in our Transfer of Properties Act,1882 is laid down in the definition provided in sec 16. of the Hong Kong Land Title Ordinance which is as follows :
"Sec.16
Entry in Title register constitutes notice to all persons.
All persons are deemed to have notice of every entry in the Title Register."
If the logic applies to Hong Kong which has an area of over 1000 sq.km., and a population of over 70 lakhs, will it not apply (more so) for India which is 3000 times larger than Hong Kong in area and 150 times larger in terms of population.