AI Overview...
-
Partition of Hindu Joint Family Property - The Supreme Court has consistently held that the partition of coparcenary property among Hindu family members does not constitute a transfer within the meaning of Section 14(6) of the Transfer of Property Act. Instead, it is viewed as an allocation of specific, defined portions of property to individual members, not an acquisition by transfer HABIB VS JAYAMMAL - Karnataka, Natti Bai VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan, Ram Pratap VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan, Chhine Sahoo VS Kaldar Sahoo - Orissa, Roop Raj Laxmi VS Sub Divisional Officer Jaipur - Rajasthan, V. N. Sarin VS Ajit Kumar Poplai - Supreme Court.
-
Legal Interpretation of Partition - The Court clarified that partition is not an act of transfer but a division of property, which does not trigger the restrictions under Section 14(6). It also emphasized that partition suits can be pending until final decrees are passed, and preliminary decrees do not amount to final transfer Chhine Sahoo VS Kaldar Sahoo - Orissa, Roop Raj Laxmi VS Sub Divisional Officer Jaipur - Rajasthan.
-
Implications for Landlord-Tenant Rights - The Court observed that Section 14(6) aims to prevent landlords from using transfers as a device to evict tenants. Since partition is not a transfer, it generally does not invoke the restrictions meant to protect tenants from eviction RAJ BAHADUR BAWEJA VS NARENDER SINGH SAHNI - Delhi.
-
Specific Case of Ajit Kumar Poplai - In the cited case, Ajit Kumar Poplai and another family member partitioned their coparcenary property in 1962, with the property falling to the share of respondent No. 1, Ajit Kumar Poplai. The case involved disputes over property rights and the nature of partition as not constituting a transfer V. N. Sarin VS Ajit Kumar Poplai - Supreme Court, HABIB VS JAYAMMAL - Karnataka.
-
Hardship and Property Suitability - In some contexts, courts acknowledged that certain shops or properties vacated after partition or transfer are well-suited for landlords, and hardship considerations are relevant, though these are secondary to legal classifications HABIB VS JAYAMMAL - Karnataka.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The collective judicial view, especially from the Supreme Court decisions cited, establishes that partition of coparcenary property among Hindu family members is not regarded as a transfer under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Consequently, such partition does not activate restrictions designed to prevent evictions or transfers that could harm tenants or other parties. In the case of Ajit Kumar Poplai, the partition was recognized as a division of property, not a transfer, aligning with the broader legal principle that partition is a division, not an acquisition or transfer of property rights.
Search Results for "Ajit Kumar Poplai and Another Sc"
2004 0 Supreme(Kar) 350 • India - Karnataka
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
Sarin u Ajit Kumar Poplai and another. Therefore, it cannot be held that, allotment of one parcel of the property to an individual coparcener as a result of partition is an acquisition of the property by transfer by the coparcener. ... He further contended that the two shops viz. , one shop in the first floor and another shop situated at the inner portion of the building are vacant; both the shops are ideal and well-suited for the landlords and that greater hardship will be caused to him in case if the ....
2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 268 • India - Rajasthan
AJAY RASTOGI, J.K.RANKA
Ajit Kumar Poplai & Another reported in AIR 1966 SC 432, the Apex Court observed that partition of Hindu Joint Family could not be treated as transfer within the purview of S.14(6) of the Transfer of Property Act. At the same time, in Smt.Roop Raj Laxmi Vs. ... Right from the enforcement of the Act, the implementation of orders have not been made with the result that one after another litigation, numerous appeals, reviews & revisions, on remand, the case could not attain finality and apart from the majo....
1995 0 Supreme(Del) 697 • India - Delhi
MOHD.SHAMIM
Ajit Kumar Poplai and Another, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 432,. . . . "the object of Sec. 14 (6) is to prevent transfers by landlords as a device to enable the purchasers to evict the tenants from the premises let out to them. ... I am tempted here to cite a few lines from the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Precision Steel and Engieering Works and Another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Toy at, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1518,. . . . ... But the question which arises for determination in the....
2017 0 Supreme(Ori) 623 • India - Orissa
A.K.RATH
Ajit Kumar Poplai and another, AIR 1966 SC 432, a question arose before the apex Court as to whether the partition of the coparcenary property among the coparceners can be said to be “an acquisition by transfer” within the meaning of Sec.14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, ... Brundaban Pradhan and another, AIR 1977 Ori. 154, this Court held that a partition suit must be deemed to be pending till a final decree is actually passed and that any number of preliminary decrees can be passed therein. ... He ....
• India - Current Civil Cases
A.K.RATH
Ajit Kumar Poplai and another, AIR 1966 SC 432, a question arose before the apex Court as to whether the partition of the coparcenary property among the coparceners can be said to be “an acquisition by transfer” within the meaning of Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ... He relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Phoolchand and another vs. Gopal Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1470 and this Court in the case of Bhagabati Sahu and others vs. Trilochan Sahu and after him Lakhpati Sahu and other....
2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 694 • India - Rajasthan
J.C.VERMA
Ajit Kumar Poplai and another (1), wherein it was held that the partition of a property does not amount to transfer of the property by way of fresh acquisition rather it amounts to acquisition of property of specific defined portion instead of undefined portion. ... Viewing from another angle that immediately after the death of the land owner in February 1963, had the land been actually partitioned and mutated in the name of two successors i.e. the petitioner Roop Raj Laxmi and his son Rajeshwar Rao, th....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21911 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Anant Ramanath Hegde
Ajit Kumar Poplai and another , AIR 1966 SC 432 and the judgment in Smt. Shakuntala vs. State of Haryana , [ AIR 979 SC 843 ] and K.M.
2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 1025 • India - Rajasthan
J.C.VERMA
Ajit Kumar Poplai and another AIR 1966 SC 432 , it was held that the partition of Hindu joint family was not a transfer within Section 14(6) of the Transfer of Property Act. ... Wasudeo and another, AIR 1991 SC 978, (supra) wherein it was held that the paramountcy of Section 4 of the Land Ceiling Act is to prevail and it was further observed that the High Court had not taken any logical view to any of the provision that partition effected through
1965 0 Supreme(SC) 174 • India - Supreme Court
K. N. WANCHOO, J. C. SHAH, M. HIDAYATULLAH, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, S. M. SIKRI
Ajit Kumar Poplai, AIR 1966 SC 432 = 1966(1) SCWR 110 = 1966(1) SCJ 199 = 1966(1) SCA 285 = 1966 SCD 415 ... Poplai and his two sons, respondent No. 1, Major Ajit Kumar Poplai and Vinod Kumar Poplai. The three members of this undivided Hindu family portioned their coparcenary property on May 17, 1962, and as a result of the said partition, the present premises fell to the share of respondent No 1.
1988 0 Supreme(HP) 22 • India - Himachal Pradesh
V.K.MEHROTRA
Ajit Kumar Poplai and another, AIR 1966 SC 432, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was dealing with section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958). ... Smt Anita Pan, AIR 1975 SC 1146, and the second in the case of Anandilal Bhanuarlal and another v. Smt. Kasturi Devi Generiwala and another, AIR 1985 SC 376, Reliance was also placed upon a decision of the Madras High Court in Thangammal and another v. ... In Surinder Kumar and others v.....
Filter by Legal Phrase
