TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds property transfer validity, rejects appeal, and denies liability for execution.</h1> <h3>Kasturchand and Anr Versus Mr. Wazir Begam and Ors.</h3> Kasturchand and Anr Versus Mr. Wazir Begam and Ors. - AIR 1937 Nag 1 Issues:1. Appeal against the declaration that a house is not liable to execution.2. Validity of the transaction transferring the house from husband to wife.3. Completion of transfer deed and priority of attachment.4. Allegations of fraudulent attempt to screen property.5. Enforcement of claims under attachment and limitation period for filing suit.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against a declaration sought by the plaintiff that a house, subject to execution by the defendants, is not liable to execution as it belongs to her. The trial court found the transaction transferring the property bona fide and for consideration. The plaintiff bore the burden to prove the alienation was not fraudulent. The court noted the timeline of events, including third-party attachments and the registration of the transfer deed.2. The transaction transferring the house from the husband to the wife was scrutinized. The court considered the pre-marriage agreement for the husband to provide a house worth a certain amount and cash to the wife. Disputes arose post-marriage due to the fraudulent nature of the initial transfer of a house that did not belong to the husband. The subsequent transfer deed in question dated 19th May 1927 was analyzed, and it was found to be a valid transaction fulfilling the husband's obligation to the wife.3. The completion of the transfer deed and the priority of attachment were discussed. The court clarified that a transfer is complete upon the execution of the conveyancing document, not upon registration. The argument that the registration date superseded the attachment date was dismissed, emphasizing that the deed was executed and delivered on 19th May 1927.4. Allegations of a fraudulent attempt to screen the property were refuted. The court highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the document's date was falsified. The purchase of stamp paper before the attachment indicated preparation rather than deceit. The court also addressed the impact of third-party attachments on the enforceability of claims under attachment.5. The enforcement of claims under attachment and the limitation period for filing the suit were deliberated. The court ruled that the plaintiff was not out of time, considering the litigation history and the belief in filing the suit in the correct tribunal. The limitation point was dismissed, and the appeal was ultimately rejected with costs awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
