Anonymous
21 August 2010 at 19:32
A agreement to sell was executed in which the date of registry was fixed as 19/08/2010. On that day the vendor was ready for sale deed but purchaser was not present before sub-registrar. Attendance of vendor has been marked before sub-registrar through written application on 19/08/2010. In that case what can vendor do against purchaser. can he terminate the agreement in that case what steps he should take?
Anonymous
21 August 2010 at 18:36
My father executed a registered settlement deed in Chennai,
India,out of his share of 6 flats from his self-aquired property
, which was done under force, in favour of a
son(unmarried,major,4 flats), a daughter(married for 30
yrs,1 flat) born out of an extra-marital affair and the lady(1
flat) in 30-4-2004,ignoring his rest of the 4 children(3
daughters,all married, 1 son, married and has two minor
children) born out of wedlock. My mother passed away in
1994. The unmarried son had legal pressures from his
debtors and hence requested my father to cancel the earlier
settlement deed and give away all the 6 flats to his mother
and sister after executing a fresh settlement deed in
24-2-2008.Since he never trusted his sister it was later
known that he has not signed the cancellation of settlement
deed. He passed away on 1-9-2009 and my father passed
away on 20-2-2010. My questions :
1. Can the Settlement deed which ignores 4 of the legal heirs
be valid?
2.If the Settlements deed are valid, then in this case on
passing away of settlee(son), who among father and mother
are entitled for his property .
3. Is their any chance of me and my sisters claiming for a
share questioning the relationship of the lady(concubine)
and the settlement deeds ?
4.If so, which suit i'm supposed to file ? Partition or
Succession?
Please Kindly guide me.
Thank you.
ronsal
21 August 2010 at 17:27
hi my wife stays in usa from past 7 yrs now she is love with someone else i wnat divorce i cant go there and she cant come here or may be doe not wnat to how shoud i get divorce.please advice.
Anonymous
21 August 2010 at 17:08
Is probating a Registered Will compulsory in the state of Orissa ?
Or mutation can be effected without probation the will ?
Anonymous
21 August 2010 at 16:43
is there any high court judgements when principal borrower agreed to reapy entire loan amount surety are discharged.
Sunlawseeker
21 August 2010 at 15:32
Dear Advocate !
In one case, A father died after bequeathing his both self acquired and ancestral property to his 3 sons out of 7 children in the year of 1993.
1 female heir is died leaving 3 as her legal heirs including her husband.
two sons who are beneficiaries of the WILL were filed a suit along with other 3 claiming partition from his elder brother.
The ancestral property was bequeathed to him.
My doubt is :
Is this suit is maintainable?
Can it be Rejected as per Order 7 Rule 11?
Any other option to solve this suit in favour of that elder son who is first defendant of the suit.
Thanking you
Regards
V. Sundaresan
c n vittal rao
21 August 2010 at 14:40
I had posted a query regarding sections 52 and 69 in regard to unregistered partnerships. I received one response from our panel of experts giving the opinion that section 69 is a bar to suits under section 52 for unregistered partnerships. I reframed the question and sought the comments of experts; there were zero responses and my query is in the unresolved query list at page 10. I am resubmitting my query in a more convenient format so that interested experts may respond.
QUERY: IS SECTION 69 A BAR FOR INSTITUTING SUITS UNDER SECTION 52 FOR UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS
If I am to answer in the affirmative, my argument would be as follows:
Section 69 was put in the Act to avoid unregistered partners from agitating their rights under the partnership deed as it would put an impossible burden on the courts to determine if the litigant is/was a partner and had locus standi to litigate. Also, section 69 follows section 52 thereby inviting a surmise that section 69 is a bar because obviously section 52 would have been in the minds of the law makers and should they have wished to exempt it from the mischief of section 69 they would have explicitly done so. In the absence of such clear mandate section 69 would constitute an insuperable bar for suits of unregistered partnerships.
If I were to argue the negative, my arguments would be as follows:
1. Section 52 is a section for partners defrauded or induced into partnership by misrepresentation to rescind such partnerships. Section 69 scope is for litigants who wish to agitate their rights under the partnership deed and Act. Therefore, section 69 should be read without reference to section 52.
2. If section 69 is a bar to suits then defrauded partners would be driven to take recourse to the criminal justice system therefore putting them to the difficulty of going to a more difficult forum as well as burdening the States criminal justice system.
3. The Indian Partnership Act is a spawn of the Indian Contract Act and the principles of equitable contracts namely, to prevent unjust enrichment, enforce minor contracts, etc can be freely imported to interpret liberally the provisions of section 52.
4. The cardinal and valuable principle of liberal interpretation is to so interpret as to "advance the remedy and supress the mischief". If this principle is applied section 52 should be considered independent of section 69.
5. If section 69 is a bar, fraudsters will get a liberal hand to dodge the consequences of their wrong doing.
6. If section 69 is interpreted as a bar then it would be tantamount to the courts becoming accomplices to fraudsters.
7. The Partnership Act is based on the foundation of mutual trust and faith among partners as well as fidelity. This interpretation would militate against this spirit of the Act.
COMMENTS FROM EXPERTS ARE SOLICITED.
PLEASE FIND TIME TO COMMENT AS IT WILL BE A MUTUAL LEARNING EXPERIENCE.
Whichever limb of the argument you favour, please adduce your reasons as well as make notes of whatever dissent you wish to record.
IN ANTICIPATION,
Chetan
21 August 2010 at 14:15
That A,B,C purchased a land for the purpose of Layouts but the A & B wants that C should not sell the plot of his share without the consent of A & BWhat type of agreement shall I have to make for that purpose ?Whether it will be lawful if yes pls provide provision And also post the draft of said draft Thanking uRegards
pratik
20 August 2010 at 23:43
1) Normally police will give CSR as a receipt of the complaint. So what do u mean by CSR .
2) The FIR will reflect the original complaint and additional information. But, once the FIR is registered you can not change.
The charge sheet cannot be altered. Only additional charge sheet can be filed after conducting the further investigation. This info provided in the additional charge sheet may contradict the first charge sheet. Which Section says the above mentioned matter also. There is no such provision under the CPC & CRPC to amend a criminal complaint & also a civil complaint. (Complaint defines a FIR in nature). So can any LD members say that which sections says that when a FIR is registrerd under the police station no one can amend or alter the FIR whether it is a civil complaint or criminal complaint in nature. OR any sections says that if the chargesheet if prepared than we can alter or amend the FIR or before it. & when the chargesheet if prepared & why what is the basic points of the chargesheet & how much it is imp in terms of indian evidence act. or who much it is useful to win a case. can a chargesheet can be alter or amend after the chargesheet is presented to the court or before it. Defination of chargesheet & its provisions.
Thanks In Advance.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
certificate of legal heirs
In rajasthan after the death of a person the legal heirs certificate was issued by the Municipality But now they are denying these days saying that now they are not empowered for the same. what can we do for that certificate . Can we file a civil suit for declaration? If so who will be the party and what will be the cause of action?