1) Name of Case: Triveni Engineering v Commissioner Central Excise

Facts: Appellants deal in turbo alternators, which have two parts, a steam
turbine, and a complete alternator.
Contentions: Appellants claim that a turbine is not an excisable good but an
immovable property as it comes up by combination of the above two. A good
to attract excise duty has to be excisable and manufactured within India.
Under excise law it must have mobility and marketability.
Holding: Not excisable.

2) Name of Case: Unnao Commercial Bank v Kamal Nath

Facts: Sold property in order to finance litigation.
Contentions: The sale deed made by Ram Prasad in favor of Ratan Chand for
financing litigation. Trial court held that the transaction was fair and equitable.
Appellant’s contention is that is that transaction is a completed sale and not an
agreement to sale. Transactions that result in financing litigations should not
per se be considered invalid. Court should not give it weight age if it is
opposed to public policy. If it were opposed to public policy then the court
would relieve the party from such transactions.
Holding: Lower appellate court held that Ratan Chand should get one-fourth
of the share of the property. Decision was overruled and trial court decree was
upheld.

3) Name of the Case: Suresh Chand v Kundan

Facts: Kundan and Mohar Singh were co-sharers of a plot. They executed an
agreement for sale in favor of the appellant. Since vendors did not execute a
sale deed the appellant brought a suit for specific performance. Kundan agreed
to transfer land but not trees on the land hence he objected before the High
Court.
Contentions: High Court held that if no compromise were arrived at between
the parties then the appellant would hold the land and respondent would reap
benefits of the trees. Supreme Court reverses the decision saying that “trees”
were sold along with the land. Immovable property as defined by Section 8, 11
of TPA and Section 3 GCA.
Holding: Appeal allowed by SC, Trees sold along with land.

4) Name of Case: Ananda Behra v State of Orissa

Facts: Petitioners obtained oral licenses from proprietor for fishing. Land
went to State and they refused to recognize the rights of the fishermen.
Contentions: Petitioners claim violation of fundamental rights. This is not so,
the state merely refuses to recognize the contract and claims not to be bound
by it. The state has not confiscated or acquired anything therefore no right has
been violated. Fish classifies as immovable property and transfer of such
property as ‘sale’ under Section 54 must be registered or written if value
exceeds Rs 100.
Holding; Petition fails and is dismissed.

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

5) Name of Case: Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v Narayan Bapuji Dhotra
Facts: Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, original plaintiff sold property to Pishorilall
Punjabi, who paid the entire amount in consideration and was put in
possession in part performance of the agreement of sale. Pishorilall then
entered into an agreement for sale with the appellant in part-performance.
Contention: Pishorilall had no right or title in favor of the land and therefore
the trial court decreed that he has no right to further sell the property. High
Court upheld the view of the trial court. Doctrine of part performance as stated
in Section 53A of the Act is an equitable doctrine which creates a bar of
estoppel in favor of the transferor against the transferee. Appellant not being
transferee within the meaning of Section 53A cannot invoke the doctrine.
Holding: Appeal failed. High Courts decision holds good.

6) Name of Case: Krishna Kumar Khemka v Grindlays Bank

Facts: Grindlays Bank are original tenants occupying 4 flats and they
surrendered a portion of the tenancy mainly two flats to Tata. The receiver had
created a new tenancy and was not authorized to do so and it was contended
that both Grindlays and Tata’s were to be evicted summarily.
Contentions: Grindlays continued to be tenants of flat 3 and 4 even after their
lease was over whereas flats 1 and 2 were in favor of Tatas. Section 5 defines
Transfer and it is referred to the word Convey. Appellants contend that
‘Receiver leasing out flats for more than 3 years is against his authority/duty’
whereas Respondent’s contend that ‘Retaining the flats does not amount to a
new tenancy’.
Holding: Tata’s evicted and no tenancy is created in their favor.

7) Name of Case: Sardara Singh v Harbhajan Singh

Facts: 3 brothers owned land. One of them who owned 1/4 th share given off to
defendant by oral exchange. Appellants contest that oral exchange is invalid.
Contentions: Oral exchange is valid and permitted in Punjab. Appellant’s
only contention was that oral exchange is invalid. The contention is that
exchange has to conform to the formalities of sale and therefore there has to be
a registered instrument and thus since there was no registered instrument
exchange is void. Argument fails as they are distinct things and Section 118
does not apply to Punjab.
Holding: Oral exchange allowed. Appellants lose case.

8) Name of Case: Rajesh Kanta Roy v Santi Debi

Facts: Plaintiff possessed properties and had 3 sons. Middle son died and
eldest so Rajesh was made trust of all properties. (Bullshit)
Contentions: Read differences between Vested and Contingent Interests.
Holding: Plaintiff wins because he has a vested interest.

9) Name of Case: Labanya Singh v Tapoi Singh

Facts: Old lady gets fucked over by son and DIL, eye surgery in Orissa and
then doctor also is involved. Property gets transferred.
Contention: Burden of proof and evidence is on the old lady.
Holding: Old Lady loses.

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

10) Name of Case: Mahadeo v State of Bombay

Facts: Several petitioners have the right to take forest produce, tendu leaves;
agreements conveyed to the petitioners allow them to take other stuff as well.
Contention: Petitioners have filed for violation of Article 32 rights.
Agreements with petitioners was in effect licenses granted to them,
agreements granted no interest in land or benefit arising out of it. If agreement
expired then sue for breach of contract not violation of fundamental rights.

In English law, distinction was made between easements and profits a prendre
and a right to take the produce of the soil was regarded as a profit a prendre.
While easements were not regarded as an interest in land, a right to take the
produce of the soil or a portion of it was an interest in land.

Profit-a-prendre can be the subject of a grant. Where they take the form of a
grant, they are benefits arising from land. In all these cases, there is not a
naked right to take the leaves of Tendu trees together with a right of ingress
and of regress from the land; there are further benefits including the right to
occupy the land, to erect buildings and to take other forest produce not
necessarily standing timber, growing crop or grass. The right of ingress and of
regress- over land vesting in the State can only be exercised if the State as the
owner of the land allows it, and even apart from the essential nature of the
transaction, the State can prohibit it as the owner of the land.

Holding: No fundamental right has been violated.

11) Name of Case: Bommaka Reddy v Srinivasa Rao

Facts: Respondent executed agreement in his own hand, writing for the sale of
property in favor of appellant. Appellant sent money for sale deed but
respondent did not acknowledge it. Appellant filed suit for specific
performance.
Contention: No substantial question of law arose in second appeal and
therefore there was no HC not justified in accepting case. Respondents
contend that it is not an agreement of sale but a promise to transfer the suit site
in favor of the plaintiff. HC view erroneous, a promise to transfer property is
an agreement for sale of property.
Holding: Appeal allowed. Trial court decree allowed.

12) Name of Case: Commissioner of Income Tax v M/S Motor and General
Stores
Facts: Respondent a private limited company owned a cinema house and at a
meeting a board of directors, it was resolved that the MD may negotiate with a
buyer the sale of the entire concern for a consideration of 1,20,000. An
‘exchange deed’ was entered into in the shape of transfer of certain shares.
Whether it is exchange or sale?

 Contentions: The substance of the transaction needs to be looked into and not
the form in which the parties have chosen to clothe the transaction. Section 54
illustrates sale and talks about “price” paid whereas Section 118 and 119 talk

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

 about exchange as there was no price paid but only a transfer of shares.
Decision is not to be made by judging the name of the document but the
substantial content of it as well the intention of the parties. The definition of
exchange in section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act is not limited to
immovable property but it extends also to barter of goods. It is clear therefore
that both under the Sale of Goods Act and the Transfer of Property Act, sale
is a transfer of property in the goods or of the ownership in immovable
property for money consideration. But in exchange there is a reciprocal
transfer of interest in the immovable property, the corresponding transfer of
interest in the movable property being denoted by the word 'barter'. "The
difference between a sale and an exchange is this, that in the former the price
is paid in money, whilst in the latter it is paid in goods by the way of barter."

Holding: Decision was in favor of the assesse company i.e. respondents as it

was an exchange and not a sale.

13) Name of Case: John Thomas v Joseph Thomas

Facts: P and D entered into an agreement for mutual exchange of properties.
Both properties were transferred and agreement was made with an additional
equalization value. Plaintiff did his part, defendant behaved like an asshole.
Plaintiff sent notice to Defendant to execute sale deed.
Contentions: Appellant/Defendant says that the suit is barred by limitation,
long delay on part of plaintiff in executing contract, played an angle of fraud.
Respondent/Plaintiff argues that he is well within time (3 years) and has
performed his part and defendant has shown willingness to do his part. *Sale
deed can be executed in name of nominees.
Holding: Defendants are made execute the sale deed.

14) Name of Case: Kamal Katkar v Algude

Facts: Respondents husband Soparno executed a document that he had taken
1200 from the appellant for the development of his land. He handed over the
possession of the suit land and the term for reconveyance was 5 years. He dies
and his wife wants the property. Since 5 years elapsed appellant declined.
Contention: Whether it is sale with an agreement to reconvey or 58(c)?

 The definition of a mortgage by conditional sale postulates the creation by the

transfer of a relation of mortgagor and the mortgagee, the price being charged
on the property conveyed
 In a sale coupled with an agreement to reconvey there is no relation of debtor
and creditor nor is the price charged upon the property conveyed, but the sale
is subject to an obligation to transfer the property within the period specified.
 What distinguishes the two transactions is the relationship of debtor and
creditor and the transfer being a security for the debt. The form in which the
deed is clothed is not decisive. The definition of a mortgage by conditional
sate itself contemplates an ostensible sale of the property.

Holding: Having regard to the factors, the transaction is an out an out sale
with a condition to repurchase and not a mortgage by conditional sale.

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

15) Name of Case: Naresa Pathar v Pakkrisamy Pathar
Facts: Ramamswamy Pathar was in possession of the shop that he mortgaged
to first defendant for 200 Rs by conditional sale. Later he paid 250/- to
Defendants 2 and 3 to redeem mortgage but they refused on the grounds that it
was an outright sale with a condition to repurchase within a stipulated time
that elapsed.
Contentions: Trial Court: Outright sale. Appellate Court: Mortgage by
condition sale. It depends on intention of parties, words used in the document.
Sale and agreement to repurchase are (separate documents) it is not mortgage
(one document). Long periods are for mortgage and short periods are to
indicate sale. There was relationship between mortgagor and mortgagee and
there was security for repayment of debt therefore it was not sale. For sale a
person must have ownership as well as possession. Condition for repurchase
has to be in the same document for mortgage.
Holding: It was held to be mortgage by conditional sale.

16) Name of Case: Rajkumari Kaushalya Devi v Bawa Pritma Singh

Facts: Appellant took two usufuructuary mortgages in favor of the
respondents with respect to the two properties and she took the properties on
lease on the same date. (Random Shit)
Contention: Appellants contention is that liability under a mortgage is not a
pecuniary liability. Section 58 clears that a mortgage in addition to creating a
pecuniary liability also transfers interest in the specific immovable property to
secure that liability. Pecuniary liability is created upon the mortgagor.
Holding: A pecuniary liability is created upon a mortgage debt.

17) Name of Case: Subbaraya Setty v Viswantha Setty

Facts: Appellant was the owner of a building where there were 8-9 shops
situated. Respondent surrendered property and building was demolished so
new building could come up. Appellant was in need for money and hence a
redeemable mortgage was executed by respondent in favor of appellant for
16,200/-.
Contentions: Trial Court decided that respondent did not pay rent and no rent
was fixed, and therefore the respondent was in occupation of the shop as a
mortgagee and not as a tenant. Lower Appellate Court reversed the decision.
Intention of parties executing the document is to be taken into account.
Holding: Appeal fails and decision of lower appellate court is upheld.

18) Name of Case: State of Punjab v Labh Singh

Facts: Labh Singh owner of some 3 villages transfers land to someone else by
way of mortgage. The Pepsu Act says that the Mortgagee with possession of
land becomes the landowner (Permissible limit- 30 acres). On redeeming land
his land area exceeded the permissible value and revenue proceedings began
against him.
Contentions: Appellants before Court of Special Leave contended that
redemption did not amount to transfer within the act and therefore the relevant
section in Pepsu Act is null and void. No transfer means no acquisition and
therefore had to be ignored. Even though the mortgagee is liable to re-transfer
the land in favor of the mortgagor on redemption such re-transfer cannot be

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

 taken as equivalent transfer under Section 32 of the Act. Possession passes
around and ownership still vests in mortgagor, equity of redemption still vests
in him.
Holding: Appeal allowed.

19) Name of Case: Bhaskar Waman Joshi v Sri Narayan Ram Bilas
Facts: The deed mentioned conveys absolute title to the property vested in;
the transferors contend that the property transferred was intended to be
mortgaged by deed of conditional sale. Transferees contend that it was an
absolute conveyance with a condition to repurchase to be exercised within a
period of 5 years from the date of the deed.
Contentions: Trial Court: Absolute sale whereas High Court: Mortgage.
The definition of mortgage by conditional sale postulates a transfer of a
relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, the price being charged on the property
conveyed. In a sale coupled with an agreement to reconvey there is no relation
of debtor and creditor nor has the price charged on the property been
conveyed, the sale is subject to an obligation to retransfer the property within
the time specified.
Holding: High Court view upheld that it is mortgage and not sale. Appeal
fails.

20) Name of Case: Rambaran Prasad v Ram Mohit Hazra

Facts: Partition between two brothers T and K. Property divided into 4 blocks
A, B, C, and D. A and C went to T and B and D went to K. Condition was
preference to other party before sale. T sold block A to G after K refused. K
on the other hand sold his property without pre-emption and a suit was filed
against him.
Contentions: The trial judge held that the covenant of pre-emption was
binding upon the defendants and the plaintiffs were entitled to the right. Pre-
emption clause must be binding on the defendants and upon the assignees and
successors-in-interest. A mere contract for sale does not create any interest in
the immovable property and therefore follows that the rule of pre-emption
does not offend the rule against perpetuities. The rule of perpetuities concerns
rights of property and does not affect making of contracts that do not create
rights of property.
Holding: Covenant for pre-emption in this case does not offend the rule
against perpetuities and cannot be considered void in law. Appeal fails.

21) Name of Case: Subayya Chowdary V. Garikapati Veeraya 

Facts: Defendant sold 6 acres of land to Plaintiff. P made advance payments
(1500) to D and got the possession. P was to make full payment to D within
one month otherwise interest was to be charged which shows that time was not
the essence of the contract. Further P executed a contract of sale in favor of
another person (P1). D sent a notice to P asking him to execute the contract of
sale or he will sue for specific performance. P instead asked D to show him
documents of title/ownership and proof that it is discharged from mortgage. D
finally sends a notice informing that contract has been canceled since P did not
comply with the contract of sale. P further issued notice saying that he had

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

 only asked for documents and had also deposited the money later in his bank.
D said he only agreed to sell and not sold it. P and P1 file a suit for specific
performance. 

Contentions: - Whether P was ready to perform the agreement of sale?

Whether the time line set by D was reasonable? Whether P asking D for
documents of title and proof of discharge of ownership is reasonable or not? 

Holding: - Trial court held that cancelation of contract by D was reasonable

since P was not willing to perform the agreement. In HC it was held, time is
not the essence of a contract unless specifically mentioned. D had allowed him
to pay interest after a month if he did not pay which showed time was not an
essence of this agreement. Further held that P was not unreasonable with his
demands because there is nothing more prudent than a buyer-asking seller to
show the title deeds and establish that land was under mortgage (Refer to
55(1) and 55(2) of TPA). Also contended was that P was not willing and able
to perform the agreement of sale but witness was established and it was
proved that P was a 'man of business' and he would have somehow paid the
money (like he did here by including P1 into it).

So for the above reasons mentioned, judgment of the trial court was set aside
and appeal was allowed. 
22) Name of Case: - Guru Amarjit Singh v Ratan Chand
Facts- Contract entered into by petitioners grandfather. Lessor pays Rs. 2 as
yearly rent and contracted building at their own cost, later 1 st Respondent sold 30
Marias to Respondent No.5, on getting to know this lessor grandson sent notice of
forfeiture (Section 111(g)).
Contentions- Respondent’s state that they had no knowledge of execution of
lease deed by predecessor in interest they contend that they did not pay rent and
that even if tenancy is proved, the court said that since they did not pay rent they
are trespassers. Section 111(g) does not apply, plea of forfeiture not available.
Even on committing default right of re-entry was available, since not clear and
unequivocal it was ruled in favor of respondents.

Holding- (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that,
on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter; or (2) in case the lessee renounces is
character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in
himself and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of
such event and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in
writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease.

23) Name of Case: - Quality Cut Pieces v Laxmi and Co.

Facts- Department Services Stores Limited, whether various stores bound by
License or Lease?
Contentions- The surrounding circumstances like want of facility to
independently lock the stalls, the inability of the stall holders to enter into the

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

building or the stores at will, the requirement of having to seek permission of the
management to change the hours of business or affect a change of merchandise,
non-assignability of interest in the stalls, agreement to pay a fixed %age of
commission, deployment of staff like watchmen, accountants by the management
to monitor the sales are relevant factors that unequivocally establish the stall
holders to be merely licenses for reward.
Holding- Held to be a license
24) Name of Case: - Puran Singh v Smt. Bhagwan Das
Facts- The court held the agreement to be a license, grantee was given furnished
flat only for temporary occupation. The grantor never made any attempt to
authorize any of the other rooms along with the couple. This shows that he
intended to give possession only to couple but want to label is at license in the
eyes of law.
Contentions- A license is not a tenancy, if the document gives right to use the
property in a certain way it is a license whereas if it transfers interest it is a lease.
Crucial test is what the parties intended. Relationship between lessor and lessee is
one of contract. A licence is a power or authority to do some acts, which, without
such authority, could not lawfully be done. In the context of an immovable
property a licence is an authority to do an act, which would otherwise be a
trespass. It passes no interest, and does not amount to demise, nor does it give the
licensee an exclusive right to the use of the property.
Holding- In this case the intention to create the license is there and determined on
a contractual basis.
25) Name of Case: -Siyavogeshwara Cotton v M.Panchaksharappa
Facts- Lease for first 20 years. Lessee was to pay a fixed rate of Rs. 350. (Entitled
to set us factory, building on land) After 20 years heir of the lessor brings suit that
the it was a tenancy at will and not a permanent tenancy and that the original
lessee had in contravention of the terms of the lease assigned the benefits of the
lease in favor of the defendants.
Contentions- Para 13 of the lease deed states that heir and assignees of lessor not
to fuck around. Liberty was given, not corresponding right. Normally building
purpose lease is given for permanent tenancy. Nature of document and intention
of parties to be seen.
Holding- Permanent Lease
26) Name of Case: - Vidhyadar v Manikrao
Contentions-
A stranger to a sale deed cannot dispute payment of consideration or its adequacy.
This decision has since been considered by various High Courts and a distinction
has been drawn between a deed which was intended to be real or operative
between the parties and a deed which is fictitious in character and was never
designed as a genuine document to effect transfer of title.

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

In order to constitute a sale, there must be a transfer of ownership from one person
to another, i.e., transfer of all rights and interests in the properties, which are
possessed by that person, are transferred by him to another person. The transferor
cannot retain any part of his interest or right in that property or else it would not
be a sale, the transfer of ownership has to be for a "price paid or promised or part-
paid and part-promised". Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the
transaction of sale. The words "price paid or promised or part-paid and part-
promised" indicate that actual payment of whole of the price at the time of the
execution of sale deed is not sine qua non to the completion of the sale. Even if
the whole of the price is not paid but the document is executed and thereafter
registered, if the property is of the value of more than Rs. 100/-, the sale would be
complete.

The real test is the intention of the parties. In order to constitute a "sale", the
parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property and they must also
intend that the price would be paid either in presenti or in future. The intention is
to be gathered from the recital in the sale deed, conduct of the parties and the
evidence on record.

Since the title in the property had already passed, even if the balance amount of
sale price was not paid, the sale would not become invalid. The property sold
would stand transferred to the buyer subject to the statutory charge for the unpaid
part of the sale price. The basic principle is that the form of transaction is not the
final test and the true test is the intention of the parties in entering into the
transaction. If the intention of the parties were that the transfer was by way of
security, it would be a mortgage.

27) Name of Case: - A.Narayana Rao v Laxmi Amma

Facts- Properties belong to SS, under a possessory mortgage came into possession
of two others. Document is two “Illidarwar” deed. Property leased in favor of
Laxmi Amma husband. Partition between two mortgagees, petitioner Narayana
Rao obtained equity and redemption rights, but filed suit cause property was in
physical possession of respondent.
Contentions-
Usufructuary Mortgage- (58(c))

 Delivery of possession or binding in regard thereto

 Authority to the mortgagee to retain possession until payment of mortgage
money and to receive rents and profits.
 Rents or profits are to be appropriated in lieu of interest or in payment of
the mortgage money in part or in whole in regard of either of them.
However if the mortgage money and interest under it were rightfully recovered,
the transaction would amount to an anomalous mortgage. If the principal amount
and interest are secured and the mortgagor takes liability under the document, the
transaction would be an anomalous one.
Holding- The documents are not usufructuary mortgages.

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

28) Name of Case: - Debi Saran v Chaubey

Deals with gift. Says that it needs to be registered according to sec. 123. TPA
takes precedence over Hindu Law.

29) Name of Case: - Union of India v Shentilanathan

Contentions-

Hypothecation is not a pledge and there is no transfer of interest or property in the

goods by the hypothecator to the hypothecatee. It only creates a notional and an
equitable charge in favor of the hypothecatee and the right of the hypothecatee, as
already stated, is only to sue on the debt and proceed in execution against the
hypothecated goods, if they are available.

As delivery of possession is not a sine qua non for the creation of a notional
charge under a deed of hypothecation and as possession of the hypothecated goods
is always with the hypothecator, a wide door is open to the owner to deal with the
goods without reference to the hypothecatee.

If, however, the hypothecator, contrary to the stipulation under the hypothecation
bond, deals with the property, the hypothecatee would certainly notice the breach
on his part and he would deal him with independently. In the absence of such a
constructive notice or express notice to the public at large, the right of the
hypothecatee is that of a bare private money creditor with the ancillary right to
proceed against the goods hypothecated after obtaining a decree in a court of law.

A pledge of personal chattels as a rule is and must be accompanied by delivery of

possession. It is out of the possession given him under the contract that the
pledgee's rights spring.

A mortgage of personal chattels involves in its essence, not the delivery of

possession, but a conveyance of title as a security for the debt

30) Name of Case: - Satyanwan v Raghbir

Facts- In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Ram
Kristo Mandal's case (supra) it has to be viewed transaction of exchange as
transaction of sale, if sale of immovable property worth Rs.100/- or more than
Rs.100/- takes place, it will require registration. Exchange of immovable property
will also require registration.

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

Contentions-The very scheme of the Transfer of Property Act clearly shows that
the sales, mortgages, leases and exchanges of the immovable property are dealt
with on totally different footings and it is futile to urge that one takes color from
the other merely because under Section 118 of the Act, an exchange can be made
only in the manner provided for sale

Holding-

In exchange, the property of 'X' is exchanged by "A" with property "Y" belonging
to "B". In this manner, the property is received in exchange of property. There is
transfer of ownership of one property for the ownership of the other.

31) Name of Case: - Syndicate Bank v Official Liquidator

Contentions- Unlike a mortgage, a pledge or hypothecation does not have the

effect of transferring any "interest" in the property in favor of the pledge or the
hypothecated. The pledge and hypothecation, however create a special property in
the goods in favor of the pledge or the hypothecate.

In the case of pledge, the special property is to keep possession of the pledged
goods and to dispose them of for the realization of the debt for which it is held as
security.

In the case of hypothecation, possessions remains with the hypothecator but the
hypothecate has the right to take possession of the hypothecated property and to
sell it for the realization of the debt secured by hypothecation.

32) Name of Case: -Amulya Gopal Majumdar v. United Industrial Bank Ltd

Three requisites for an equitable mortgage are: - (1) debt, (2) deposit of title deeds
and (3) an intention that the title deeds so deposited shall be security for the debt.

33) Name of Case: - Gopal Singh v Punjab National Bank

Contentions-

It is well known that both conceptually and factually, the possession of the
pledged goods is delivered to the bank without any transfer of property in the said
by the act of pledge a two-fold special right on the pledge in the goods, namely, to
hold the goods in possession and to dispose them of if the default is made in the
payment of the money for which the -pledge is included to be the security.

The standard cash credit agreement, which includes the provision for pledge and
which is, the repository of all rights and obligations between the bank and the
borrower clearly provides that the pledged goods would remain in possession of
the bank even though they maybe stored in the godowns which may even belong
to the borrower or may be situated within the precincts of the factory of borrower
but are under the lock and key of the bank.

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

It is true that there is distinction between hypothecation of goods and pledge of
goods, in that, the hypothecated goods need not be the physical possession of the
bank but may remain under the actual physical possession of the borrower with a
view to enable the borrower to use the same either as raw material or in the room
of fabrication of goods or as finished goods. This is a facility granted to the
borrower by the banking institutions so that the actual operations of the borrower
are not affected.

34) Name of Case: - Kaveripatnam v S.K.Vishvanatha

The essential feature of a mortgage, which is not there in a lease, is that the
property transferred is a security for repayment of a debt in a mortgage
whereas in a lease, it is transfer of a right to enjoy the property.

35) Name of Case-Vasudev v Pranlal

Section 122 and 123 requirements were fulfilled.

36) Name of Case- Madhukar v Institute of Public Performance

Apart from a Universal donee being a legal representative, such a donee only
takes the estate of the deceased subject to his liabilities, as section 128 of the
Transfer of Property Act fastens a personal liability upon the Universal donee for
all debts due by the donor at the time of the gift, though such liability is confined
only to the extent of the properties comprised in the gift.

37) Name of Case- Bank of Baroda v Rabari

The owners are under an obligation to discharge the debt within the stipulated
time and if they fail to do so, the creditor has the right of re-entry for the limited
purpose of repayment of the loan. The title in the goods remains with the pledgor;
the de jure and de facto possession continues to remain with him and the
pledgee/creditor has merely the right to recover his dues if need be, by the sale of
the security, that is the pawn.

38) Name of Case- SBI v Shah Ali

Contentions-

 In the case of pledge, the possession of pledged goods will be passed on to the
Pawnee from the pawnor, and the possession of moveables will be transferred
to the Pawnee and he will be in possession and the pawnor will not be able to
enjoy the same as the possession has already been parted with the goods. So,
pledge deals with transfer of possession of moveable property to the creditor
as security to the loan advanced.

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

  Hypothecation is understood in mercantile world as creation of charge on
moveables in favor of hypothecatee by hypothecator where possession of
goods will remain with the hypothecator. Thus, the hypothecator can be in
possession of goods hypothecated and enjoy the same without causing any
damage to the rights of the hypothecatee.
 Thus, to sum up, the distinction between pledge and hypothecation is, that in
case of hypothecation the hypothecator can be in possession of the goods
hypothecated and enjoy the same without causing any damage to the rights of
the hypothecatee whereas in the case of pledge the possession of moveables
will be transferred to the pawnee and he will be in possession and the pawnor
will not be able to enjoy the same as the possession has already been parted
with.
 Neither the Transfer of Property Act nor the Indian Contract Act recognizes
the non-possessory hypothecation of moveables. The rights and remedies of
the parties to such a transaction must be regulated by the Courts according to
general law of contract, subject to those principles of justice, equity and good
conscience
 A non-possessory hypothecation of moveables is a valid contract and should
be recognized and enforced by the Courts. The rights of the hypothecatee are
entirely regulated by the terms of the contract between the parties. On default
in payment of the debt, he can compel delivery of the property or obtain a
decree for sale of the property, if so stipulated in the contract.
 If the property is simply hypothecated without any stipulation as to the manner
in which it is to be dealt with, the only remedy open to the creditor is to obtain
a money-decree declaring his lien on the property and his right to sell.
 Hypothecation has been defined as a right which a creditor has over a thing
belonging to another, and which consists in the power to cause it to be sold in
order to be paid his claims out of the proceeds. It is an act of pledging a thing
as security for a debt or demand without parting with the possession.
 It follows as a consequence that although the property remains in the
possession of the debtor, it cannot be transferred to a third party without the
express consent or permission of the creditor.

"Unlike a mortgage, a pledge or hypothecation does not have the effect of

transferring any interest" in the property in favor of the pledgee or the
hypothecatee. The pledge and hypothecation, however, create a special
property in the goods in favour of the pledgee or the hypothecate.

41) Name of Case- Bharat Petroleum v Chembur

Facts-On 1.4.1972, the Appellant/Plaintiff Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd entered
into an agreement with the Respondent/Defendant Chembur Service Station, whereby
the Respondent were appointed as the dealers for selling the petroleum products of the
Appellant from a RPO (Retail Petroleum Outlet) of which the appellant was a lesse.
During a surprise inspection carried out by the Quality Control Cell of the Appellant
in the presence of the manager of the Respondent, some discrepancies were noticed in
one of the dispensing units. Therefore, the Electronic Register Assembly of the said
dispensing unit was removed therefrom and was sent for inspection to the
manufacturer MIDCO, who gave a report on stating that the Microcontroller chip
hardware in the ERA was not the original as supplied by them. The Appellant, issued

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

a show cause notice to the Respondent under the relevant provisions of the agreement
between the parties stating therein that the Respondent had manipulated / altered the
original chip with a view of making illegal gain by cheating the customers of the
Company, thereby causing breach of trust, and calling upon the Respondent to show
cause within 15 days, as to why action should not be taken including termination of
the dealership.
Issue-
1) What is the nature of a license that is granted to the Respondent by the Appellant
under the DPSL agreement?
- 'License' defined: Indian Easements Act, 1882
Section 52
Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a
right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor,
something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does
not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a license.
i.e. a license granted by the owner enables a licensee a right to do or continue to do
certain specified things in or upon an immovable property. The legal possession,
therefore, continues to be with the owner of the property, but the licensee is permitted
to make use of the premises for a particular purpose. But for the permission, his
occupation would be unlawful. It does not create in his favour any estate or interest in
the property. There is, therefore, clear distinction between the two concepts. The
dividing line is clear though sometimes it becomes very thin or even blurred.
Section 105 of the TPA defines a lease of immovable property as a transfer of a right
to enjoy such property made for a certain time in consideration for a price paid or
promised. Under Section 108 TPA, the lessee is entitled to be put in possession of the
property. A lease is therefore a transfer of an interest in land. The interest transferred
is called the leasehold interest. The lessor parts with his right to enjoy the property
during the term of the lease, and it follows from it that the lessee gets that right to the
exclusion of the lessor.
The court based its decision on the following propositions: (1) To ascertain whether a
document creates a licence or lease, the substance of the document must be preferred
to the form; (2) the real test is the intention of the parties - whether they intended to
create a lease or a licence; (3) if the document creates an interest in the property, it is
a lease; but, if it only permits another to make use of the property, of which the legal
possession continues with the owner, it is a licence; and (4) if under the document a
party gets exclusive possession of the property, prima facie, he is considered to be a
tenant; but circumstances may be established which negative the intention to create a
lease.
Conclusion: The Appellant is entitled to continue in possession of the petrol pump
premises and use it for its business. The Appellant is also entitled to lawfully prevent
the Respondent from entering upon the premises. License.

42) Name of Case- Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

 Contentions- Section 119 of the TPA envisages that if any party to an exchange is
by reason of any defect in title of the other party deprived of the thing or any part
of the thing received by him in exchange, then, unless a contrary intention appears
from the terms of the exchange, such other party is liable to him for the return of
the thing transferred.

43) Name of Case- Meghraj v DCM

Contentions- The Supreme Court after analyzing the principles laid down by the
English and Indian Courts, held that one of the twin principal tests by which a
lease is distinguishable from the relationship created under a license is the-

Element of the right to exclusive possession involving the transfer of an interest in

the property, the other being the 'rent' stipulated for the grant.

44) Name of Case- Chetty v Nagarjan

Contentions- The parties to an agreement cannot, however, turn a lease into a

licence merely by stating that the document is to be deemed a licence or
describing it as such; the relationship of the parties is determined by law on a
consideration of all relevant provisions of the agreement; nor will the employment
of words appropriate to a lease prevent the agreement from conferring a licence
only if from the whole document it appears that it was intended merely to confer a
licence.

In the absence of any formal document the intention of the parties must be
inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the parties.

The grant of an exclusive right to a benefit can, however, is inferred only from
language, which is clear and explicit. If an exclusive right of possession is subject
to certain reservations or to a restriction of the purposes for which the premises
may be used, the reservations or restriction will not necessarily prevent the grant
operating as a lease.

A licence is normally created where a person granted the right to use premises
without becoming entitled to exclusive possession thereof, or the circumstances
and conduct of the parties show that all that was intended was that the grantee
should be granted a personal privilege with no interest in the land.

If the agreement is merely for the use of the property in a certain way and on
certain terms while the property remains in the possession and control of the
owner, the agreement will operate as a licence, even though the agreement may
employ words appropriate to a lease

45) Name of Case- Shakuntala Devi v Amar Devi

Contentions- Express acceptance by the donee is not necessary to complete a gift. It

has long been settled that the acceptance of a gift by the donee is to be presumed until
his dissent is signified, even though he is not aware of the gift, and this is equally so
although the gift be of an onerous nature or of what is called an onerous trust

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB

The acceptance of a gift can be 'either express or implied’.

Arman Sood 2nd Year BA.LLB