Agreement To Sell Indian Kanoon

    0

    The court decided that there was a division between the family on 23 April 1971 and that the act of division of the same date was admissible in evidence. The “Suit” property was available at the time of division. The deed of sale cited by the original applicant was only a nominal deed of sale and not a deed of sale since exh. P1 was executed as collateral for a loan and never intended to sell the property in the complaint. It was also established by the court that The property of Krishnappa for a sum of Rs 400/- purchased in 1948 and after which it is stated that it was sold according to Rs 200/- after 16 years in 1964, which is highly unlikely. Supreme Court judgment on the family comparison instrument as confirmatory evidence (download pdf) The Supreme Court considers that, in these facts and circumstances of the case, it was not justified for HC to intervene in the findings recorded by the two courts listed below. D4 cannot be considered as an act of division and only as a list of partitioned properties and does not create or remove any rights to the immovable property and, therefore, no mandatory registration document, and exh. D4 is therefore admissible as evidence…