9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Transfer of Property Act
Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Transfer of Property Act The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Transfer of Property Act and its application to a specific case. Justice Garth expresses doubts regarding the correctness of the Allahabad Court's decision but ultimately agrees with the majority view due to the balance of convenience. Justice Wilson, while finding the language of the section vague, concurs with the majority based on the general rule of not taking away vested rights in substantive matters. He also cites the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad Court as a factor in his agreement. Justice Trevelyan, along with Justice Prinsep, acknowledges the importance and complexity of the issue. He discusses the need to choose between the Regulation and the Act, emphasizing that the procedure must be followed entirely based on the chosen law's application. The judges analyze the impact on the mortgagor's rights and relief under both the Regulation and the Act, concluding that the relief remains unaffected by the change in procedure. Justice Trevelyan ultimately opines that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act apply to the case, aligning with the majority view of the Full Bench of the Allahabad Court and emphasizing the potential inconvenience of a contrary decision. This judgment delves deep into the interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, with each judge providing nuanced reasoning for their stance. While Justice Garth expresses initial doubts, he defers to the majority view due to the balance of convenience. Justice Wilson, despite finding the language of the section unclear, agrees with the majority based on the principle of not taking away vested rights. He also considers the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad Court in forming his opinion. Justice Trevelyan, with Justice Prinsep, highlights the importance and complexity of the issue, emphasizing the need to select either the Regulation or the Act for complete procedural adherence. They analyze the impact on the mortgagor's rights and relief under both laws, ultimately concluding that the relief remains constant despite the change in procedure. Justice Trevelyan aligns with the majority view of the Full Bench of the Allahabad Court, asserting that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act should govern the case, highlighting the potential inconvenience of a different decision.
|
