Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreBCAJ Brieficles are short-format, web-only articles on contemporary topics of professional importance that are open-for-all to read & share.
Explore BrieficlesExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreMonthly mouth-piece of BCAS, the BCA Journal is a leading publication that has been in continuous circulation for more than 53 years. Over the years the BCAJ has become synonymous with high-quality & authentic content across fields of finance, accounting, tax & regulatory matters. The BCAJ has wide circulation across India & commands huge respect amongst the Chartered Accountants` community.
Learn MoreFor queries, collaborations, and insights to forge, Drop a line, share thoughts, inquiries galore, At BCAJ, your messages, we eagerly explore.
Learn More43 Rizwi Khan vs. Abdul Rashid and Ors.
AIR 2024 Jharkhand 167
12th July, 2024
Transfer of property — Gift deed — No title with the donor to start with — Illegal occupation over property — Gift deed invalid. [S. 122, Transfer of Property Act, 1882; O. 1, R. 10, Code for Civil Procedure, 1908].
FACTS
A suit was instituted by the Plaintiff (Rizvi Khan) for declaration of title over the suit property. The suit was filed on the strength of a gift deed executed by the donor (one Mr. Shamsher Ali, father of both Plaintiff and Respondents) in favour of the Plaintiff. The Respondents had argued, inter alia, that the said gift deed was null and void on the ground that the donor did not have a clear title over the suit property on the date of transfer of property.
HELD
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court observed that the suit property belonged to the state government, which was leased out to TISCO. Further, it was observed that the donor was illegally occupying the said land. Thus, relying on the legal maxim ‘Nemo dat quod non-habit’, i.e., one cannot give what he does