Quit Claim Deed Sc: Fill & Download for Free

I have written what I feel are important things most people are unaware of and should know. I have tried to cover most important branches of law.This is based on my experience of past two years and I am likely to edit this answer in a few days to add more points -First thing -1. Ignorance of law is no defence -In the court of law, you cannot plead as defence the fact that you were not aware of the law. This is what damns most people! And makes the field of law extremely important if one wishes to survive in material life.2. While buying an immovable property - (Like Flat or Land) -Giving a public notice in the newspaper is a must. It doesn't matter which one. It need not be English. Any state language too will do. And any newspaper with some circulation will do. This Public notice is what protects your interest in the court of law if you face any litigation regarding your purchased property.Secondly, a legal search of the property (not to be confused with physical search) has to be conducted by hiring a lawyer following which he gives a title note. If you approach nationalised banks for loan to buy property, their lawyers conduct a search and give title note. But if not, you have to do it yourself.Lawyers conduct search by visiting sub registrar's office and checking the record of title documents.Example - You bought a flat without public notice and legal search, and turns out the owner did not have a clear title. Now you along with the owner are being sued for cancellation of your purchase.In such a case, the law / court is bound to protect the interest of a bonafide purchaser if he had given a public notice and had conducted search. If not, then the law is not going to protect your interest.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EDIT -With due respect to all professions, this is a sincere advice -When drafting agreements like Sale Deeds or Agreement to sell (These are relating to buying properties), please take the help of your trusted lawyer. Most people try to save the lawyer's fees by getting the agreements drafted by Estate Agents. This in my experience, is a grave mistake as Estate Agents are not qualified to draft agreements. They have standard formats in which they fill your details.Every agreement that is drafted speaks for itself. Tomorrow if you end up in court, the court is not going to ask you as to what was agreed between you and the seller. They will read your agreement. Which is why, it should be properly drafted.An average lawyer will charge somewhere between Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- to draft the agreement in cities. An Estate agent takes around 4-5,000/- for this job.Even then, spending a little more money to draft a good agreement which will save your trouble later is wiser.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. What should you do when someone gave you a cheque and it bounces?Assuming that you received payment for some work you did, and the cheque got bounced, what are your rights?The reason I am including this in this answer is the fact that time is of essence in a cheque bouncing case.The moment a cheque bounces with the endorsement "Insufficient Funds", go to a lawyer and send the person a legal notice demanding your money. This has to be done within 30 days of bouncing of the cheque. Once that person receives your notice, he is required by law to pay you your money within the next 15 days. His failure to do so, gives you a right to file a criminal case against him for cheque bouncing.Cheque bouncing now is a criminal offence and he risks sitting in jail for it.4. Streedhan in Hindu law -Whatever money, jewellery etc. is given to a bride in her marriage by both her parents as well as the groom's parents is legally her property. It is known as Streedhan. So ladies, if you are leaving matrimonial home for divorce, take your streedhan with you.Most people later fight for it in courts as gold is extremely costly.5. Devolution of property in Hindu Law -If a Hindu man dies intestate (without making a will), his property devolves as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. His mother, wife and children all get an equal share in his property.A man can only make a will and give away his self acquired property. There is no limit to it.If you have earned the property yourself then you can even give it away to a stranger.Don't want to give your property to your wife and kids? Make a will and register it!But if it is ancestral property, he cannot give away to stranger alone, as his children and brothers (now sisters) too have joint rights. What he can do is make a will of his share in the ancestral property.6. Maintenance - Muslim womenMaintenance of divorced Muslim women is actually a woeful tale on which I plan to write an article soon. Anyway, so divorced Muslim women have no right to maintenance from their husbands. Only if both the husband and wife make an affidavit to be governed by Section 125 of the Criminal procedure code, then she can claim maintenance under section 125.Why would a man do that? And obviously they don't. So, not only can any random Kazi nullify their marriage, she has no rights whatsoever after that. The law says that her parents, children or relatives are liable to pay her maintenance. And if nothing works, she can claim maintenance from the Wakf board of India which ends up giving nominal maintenance.7. Special Marriage Act.Hindu / Christian women wishing to marry Muslim men should know exactly what happens to their legal rights on conversion and marriage under Muslim law.Muslim men can legally have 4 wives. And if you married under the Muslim law, you have no right of maintenance.To keep all your rights intact and make an informed choice, marry under the Special Marriage Act specially made for such instances. One should not land up in a situation where one has to regret later.8. Registration of documents -Registration of all legal indentures related to immovable property more than Rs. 100/- is compulsory.This includes your Leave and License (Rent agreement), Sale deeds, lease agreements, gifts etc. Most people who don't register either don't know this or are looking to save stamp duty.Trust me, it is not worth it to try and save stamp duty only to land up with litigation which will cost you a hell of a lot more than just money.Registration means actually going to the Sub Registrar's office, and registering the document there and not merely notarizing it with a Notary's stamp.9. Police complaints and record creation.While giving police complaints, please take help from a lawyer. Most lawyers will draft the police complaint and give it to you. This is important because should your complaint culminate into a case, police complaint becomes an important piece of evidence.10. Limitation.There is a whole Limitation Act to tell you about this, but I will only talk about the things which happen most often.For most civil case, the limitation to file a case is three years. Your client breached your contract and owes you money, you have to file a case within three years of his refusal to pay. After that your suit is time barred and most likely be dismissed.11. Arbitration -Arbitration is a method of alternate dispute resolution. In this, Parties decide beforehand that in case of dispute they will not go to court but rather would appoint an independent arbitrator (s) to resolve their disputes.ON the face of it, this looks nice, you don't have to go to court, saves money time and energy. These days, it has become a trend to have arbitration clause in the agreement. From employment agreements to huge deal between companies, you can see arbitration everywhere.But in my experience having an arbitration clause in your contract without understanding the full implications of it can be very damning.For starters, people should know that once you write this clause you completely close the doors of the court. If you have arbitration clause, you cannot go to court. And an arbitral award is binding on the parties just like a court decision.Further, appeal from an arbitral award can be made on extremely limited grounds. So, what would otherwise give you three fora (District court, High Court and then Supreme Court) to appeal, is completely gone through Arbitration. So, you are left with no choices.Plus remember that bribing an independent Arbitrator is way easier than bribing all the judges in these three different fora.EDIT - As promised, and based on the comments -12. Pre marital sex-Consensual pre-marital sex is not illegal in India as long as the girl's age is more than 16. The recent Madras High court judgement (Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC) is very interesting. Note that this judgment is not binding on other courts throughout India. And it is quite likely that it will be challenged and the opinion of the SC will matter then.13. Live in relationships in India -These are not illegal and any two consenting adults have the freedom to live together without marriage if they wish to. Domestic violence act too takes this relationship into consideration and a woman can get relief under the act even if she is not legally wedded to the man.In fact there is also an inclination to treat live in relationships like marriage in Indian courts if the couple have lived together for many years.Children born out of live in relationships have a right to inherit their parent's property.Also, children born to mistresses (illegitimate children, only to make it clear, I am personally against using the term) too inherit their father's property and can claim maintenance.14. Inheritance of ancestral property by women under Hindu law -Women have an equal right of inheritance in ancestral property after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. Women can also demand partition of the property and women can also be recognised as the Karta of Joint Hindu family property now.15. Public display of affection -Section 294 of the Indian penal code states that whoever commits obscene acts in public places will be punished for a term which may extend up to 3 months. The word 'Obscene' is not defined as our definition of it keeps changing with time.Needless to say, your regular kiss, or goodbye hug do not fall in this category. Therefore, public display of affection is perfectly legal. Only when it inclines towards obscenity, one may be punished.Also, unfortunately, in spite of a sane law, you may still come across news of policemen harassing couples.16. Pornography -In India, watching or possessing pornographic material is not illegal. It is illegal and punishable only when one sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts it into circulation.Reference - Section - 292 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of Information Technology Act.Will be adding more. Feel free to comment and suggest more topics.For more on Indian law, follow my blog - Blawgniti

Any concerns he had about Aragorn as a potential usurper would have seemed irrelevant in the face of the immediate crisis though they would have been present, and complicated matters further. However the fact that Aragorn and Gandalf wanted to denude Gondor of it’s already scant defences to march on the Black Gate would have seemed a far more pressing concern. Denethor would have opposed this with every fibre of his being, and if any of the various notables of Gondor such as Faramir and Imrahil sided with Aragorn, and I believe they would it would have added to his despair. He would have assumed they were sure to fail and die in vain, and that Minas Tirith itself would fall soon after. I do not think Faramir’s survival alone would have kept him from despair in light of this. That said if he survived the War of the Ring then going by Tolkien’s opinion of Denethor:Denethor was tainted with mere politics: hence his failure, and his mistrust of Faramir. It had become for him a prime motive to preserve the polity of Gondor, as it was, against another potentate, who had made himself stronger and was to be feared and opposed for that reason rather than because he was ruthless and wicked. Denethor despised lesser men, and one may be sure did not distinguish between orcs and the allies of Mordor… He had become a 'political' leader: sc. Gondor against the rest.I believe he would have stepped down in the end. He was after all quite pragmatic, and if his prime motive was to ‘preserve the polity of Gondor,’ then for him to attempt any sort of repetition of the kin-strife would have been unthinkable. Especially since being ‘tainted with mere politics,’ he would have understood the political reality of his situation. Though Aragorn’s claim to the kingship by dint of his lineage was in fact somewhat dubious (you can read more about this in Thomas Doyle's answer to How long was Gondor without a king before Aragorn?) and precedent was against it when Denethor told Gandalf that,‘I will not be thy tool! I am Steward of the House of Anárion. I will not step down to be the dotard chamberlain of an upstart. Even were his claim proved to me, still he comes but of the line of Isildur. I will not bow to such a one, last of a ragged house long bereft of lordship and dignity.’The political reality would have been quite different at the conclusion of the War of the Ring. Even if precedent was against Aragorn claiming the throne of Gondor as a descendant of Isildur, or the throne of the re-united kingdom as a descendant of Elendil, as it did not yet exist, he could still be acclaimed king. This is in fact exactly what occurred. After all Eärnil, the father of Gondor’s last king, was a captain of Gondor of the house of Anárion (a descendant not of the royal line) chosen to be king over the late king Ondoher’s oldest surviving child in large part because of his great deeds in war. As a direct descendant of Elendil with the tokens to prove it, the acclaim of the people of Minas Tirith, support of some of its greatest lords, and having saved the city itself at the Pelennor, and indeed all of Gondor by enabling Frodo to complete his quest, while contributing in a major way to the defeat of Sauron Aragorn’s political position was simply unassailable.Moreover I believe Denethor would have eventually seen Aragorn as a worthy claimant on a personal level. Only a fool would have been unable to recognise this, and Denethor was not a fool. Most importantly he would once again have understood the political reality of the situation in that Aragorn was ultimately more concerned with the North Kingdom of Arnor. Denethor would have encouraged his ambition to restore it as his frequent absences would have left him more or less in the same position he had always been in, ruling Gondor in the king’s name as his representative.

DETERMINATION OF LEASE = TERMINATION OR EXPIRY OF LEASEBY EFFLUX OF THE TIME = PASSAGE OF TIME______________________________Section 111 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882111. DETERMINATION OF LEASE. — A lease of immoveable property determines—(a) BY EFFLUX OF THE TIME limited thereby;(b) where such time is limited conditionally on the happening of some event—by the happening of such event;(c) where the interest of the lessor in the property terminates on, or his power to dispose of the same extends only to, the happening of any event—by the happening of such event;(d) in case the interests of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property become vested at the same time in one person in the same right;(e) by express surrender; that is to say, in case the lessee yields up his interest under the lease to the lessor, by mutual agreement between them;(f) by implied surrender;(g) by forfeiture; that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter 1[* * *]; or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; 2[or (3) the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event]; and in 3[any of these cases] the lessor or his transferee 4[gives notice in writing to the lessee of] his intention to determine the lease;(h) on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the property leased, duly given by one party to the other. Illustration to clause (f) A lessee accepts from his lessor a new lease of the property leased, to take effect during the continuance of the existing lease. This is an implied surrender of the former lease, and such lease determines thereupon.______________________________Determination of lease: Legally ending of Lease: cancelable/ breakable leaseEfflux of the time: passage of timeA gross lease or tenancy stipulates a rent that is for the total amount due including all service charges. A determinable lease (cancelable / breakable lease) is a lease that may be terminated (formally determined) solely by the lessee or solely by the lessor without penalty._______________________________TENANT AT SUFFERANCEA person who is a tenant at sufferance has no estate or interest in the leasehold property. A tenant holding after the expiry of his term is a tenant at sufferance, which is a term useful to distinguish a possession rightful in its inception but wrongful in its continuance from a trespass which is wrongful both in its inception and in its continuance. A co-owner can maintain a suit by himself in ejectment of a trespasser or a tenant at sufferance; B.” --- Valsala v. Sundram Nadar Bhaskaran, AIR 1994 Ker 164.____________________________It has been held that the Board was entitled to institute proceedings against the tenant as the notice period had expired; VASANT KUMAR RADHAKISHAN VORA V. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY, AIR 1991 SC 14._____________________________The normal expiration of a lease due to the efflux of time (meaning passage of time), rather than due to a specific event that might cause the lease to end, such as destruction of the building.Fixed period lease agreement expired by EFFLUX OF TIME: Once a fixed period lease agreement expires by efflux of time i.e. with passage of time, the terms and conditions of the lease agreement is not binding on landlord and tenant.Under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('TPA'), one of the grounds for termination of a lease is by efflux of time. To ensure clarity over their respective rights and entitlements, both lessors and lessees must be aware of the consequences of an expiry of lease due to efflux of time - especially of the different implications of choosing between an 'EXTENSION', 'RENEWAL' OR 'HOLDING OVER' of a lease. These legal concepts apply to situations where a lessee is desirous of continuing to lawfully occupy the leased premises, even after expiry of the original lease period.EXTENSIONExtension clauses - a distinct category of clauses that relate to consequences of expiry of a lease - are commonly incorporated in Lease Deeds. An extension clause entitles a lessee to opt for an additional lease term upon expiry of the initial lease term, on the same terms and conditions of the original Lease Deed, and is generally subject to increases in rent and security deposit. Ordinarily a lessor is not in a position to challenge or unreasonably deny an extension of lease which is validly sought by a lessee - the lessor is treated as having agreed to lease the property for the total duration contemplated under the original Lease Deed. Hence, the lessee's exercise of its option of extension of lease would not hinge on obtaining the lessor's assent.Unlike a Lease Deed containing a renewal clause, a Lease Deed containing an extension clause would not terminate upon expiry of the initial lease term, in case the option to extend the lease has been duly exercised as per the terms and conditions of the original Lease Deed. In PROVASH CHANDRA DULAI V. BISHWANATH BANERJEE (1989), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that a Lease Deed is not necessarily required to be executed afresh in order to give effect to an extension of the original lease. Rather, the original Lease Deed continues in force during the extended lease term, since an extension of lease is only a prolongation of the original lease. In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS V LALJI TANDON (2003), the apex court similarly held that the principal lease would continue to be in force for the additional lease period agreed by the Parties.Another vital difference between an 'EXTENSION' vis-a-vis 'RENEWAL' of lease pertains to the stamp duty implications. In PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK V. VIJENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER (2013), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that parties cannot rely on an extension clause to avoid payment of applicable stamp duty for the total lease term contemplated under the original Lease Deed, simply by paying stamp duty calculated on the basis of the initial lease term. To give effect to an extension clause, stamp duty is required to be paid in the first instance and calculated on the basis of the total lease term contemplated in the original Lease Deed. In contrast, as a 'renewal' of lease is a fresh lease in itself, the initial lease period cannot be clubbed with the renewed lease period for the purpose of levying stamp duty. As a 'fresh' Lease Deed for a renewed term is treated independent of the original Lease Deed, the two agreements would be chargeable to stamp duty independently as well.RENEWALWhen a Lease Deed for a fixed term contains a clause for renewal of the lease for a further fixed term, Parties erroneously assume that by having incorporated a renewal clause, the original Lease Deed would automatically stand renewed for such additional period upon expiry of the initial lease term. However, to give effect to a renewal clause under the original lease, a Lease Deed has to be executed afresh by the Parties, evidencing such renewal. Further, the Lease Deed for the renewed term should be duly stamped and registered. The nature of renewal of lease was highlighted in DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V DURGA CHAND KAUSHISH (1973), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that a 'renewal' of lease is called so because it postulates the existence of a prior lease which generally contains a clause for renewal. In all other respects, a renewal is essentially a 'fresh' grant of lease by the lessor.An interesting issue on whether a renewed lease would automatically entitle a lessee to obtain further renewals came up in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS V LALJI TANDON (2003). In this case, the Lease Deed under dispute was for a period of 50 years and contained a clause for renewal for a further lease term of 50 years. The State Government contended that the lease was renewable only once for a further term of 50 years. That is, upon expiry of the renewed term, the right of renewal under the Lease Deed stood exhausted and the lessee would not be entitled to continue seeking further renewals. The apex court held that where an original Lease Deed contains a clause for renewal, and the Parties do renew the lease in accordance with such clause, whether or not the lessee would be entitled for further successive renewals shall depend on the facts and circumstances unique to each case. In such disputes, the courts would ascertain the intention of the parties and assess wording of relevant clauses of the Lease Deed.Where the original Lease Deed contains a clause for renewal but the lessor fails to execute and/or get registered the 'fresh' grant of lease for the further lease term despite requests of the lessee, the aggrieved lessee may file a suit for specific performance of the renewal clause, provided the lessee is not guilty of having violated or breached any material terms of the original Lease Deed. To successfully secure a renewal of lease, lessees should exercise their option of renewal within the time period stipulated under the original Lease Deed.HOLDING OVERWhere parties rely on 'renewal' or 'extension' clauses for lease of the premises beyond the initial lease term, their rights and obligations arise from the written Lease Deed executed by them. However, there are also cases where in the absence of a written contract, a fresh lease is created by virtue of an implied agreement between the parties. It is common knowledge that on expiry of a lease, it is the duty of the lessee to hand-over vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the lessor. The expression 'holding over' applies to cases where a lessee retains possession even after expiry of the initial lease term. However, the mere act of retaining possession of the property would not necessarily or automatically create a new tenancy. Rather, there must be a bilateral act by the parties for creation of a new lease. The lessee's conduct of retaining possession of the leased premises and continuing full and timely payment of rent even after expiry of the original lease term would ordinarily indicate his desire to remain as a lessee. In most cases, the lessor's consent was indicated by conduct such as voluntarily accepting rent from the lessee. Upon receiving the lessor's consent, a fresh tenancy would stand created by virtue of an implied agreement between the parties, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. Such holding over would amount to a fresh tenancy even if the Parties decide to continue the tenancy on the same terms and conditions of their earlier lease.Here a distinction must be drawn between lawful and unlawful possession of the premises by lessees after the lease term has expired. Whilst a lessee 'holding over' is a lawful occupant as he continues to retain possession with consent from the lessor, a lessee who continues to retain possession without consent (whether implied or explicit) from the lessor does so unlawfully and is a 'tenant at sufferance'. As no lawful tenancy stands created in favour of a tenant at sufferance, an aggrieved lessor is entitled to file a suit for eviction forthwith. However, to terminate an ongoing lawful tenancy, the lessor would first be required to give the lessee prior notice for termination and the relief of eviction may be sought when the lessee fails to vacate the premises beyond the notice period.Unfortunately, courts in India are weighed down by frivolous litigation in matters of tenancy. A simple case of arrears of rent and ejectment recently came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in December, 2014, in SATENDRA SINGH V VINOD KUMAR BHALOTIA, where the apex court highlighted how the process of law was sought to be abused by the lessee by repulsing the lessor's attempts to recover possession of the premises. The lessee had continued to occupy the suit premises even after 32 years had elapsed since the expiry of the original lease agreement which had been executed for a lease term of only 11 months. In the words of the judiciary, 'nothing short of immediate and emergent measures are required to solve this crisis.'_______________________________Expiry of LeaseSection 106 in The Transfer of Property Act, 18821[106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage.—(1) In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice.(3) A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section.(4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property.]____________________________Doctrine of mergerThe doctrine of merger is attracted when a leasehold and revision coincide. If the lessee purchases the lessor’s interest, the lease is relinquished as the same person cannot at the same time be both landlord and tenant. The doctrine of merger is based on the principle of union of two conflicting interests which cannot be held by one person at the same time. Therefore, the leasehold rights in favour of the appellants stand extinguished; RAMESH KUMAR JHAMBH V. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, HIGH COURT BOMBAY, AIR 1993 BOM 374.Implied surrender there can be implied surrender, if the lessor grants a new lease to a third person with the assent of the lessee under the existing lease who delivers the possession to such person or where the lessee directs his sub-tenant to pay the rent directly to the lessor. Since the respondents had by executing the agreement impliedly surrendered their leasehold rights, they were no longer lessees; P.M.C. KUNHIRAMAN NAIR V. C.R. NAGARATHA IYER, AIR 1993 SC 307.Clause (1) of section 111(g) has no application as there was no covenant prohibiting sale or on its breach, of the right of re-entry. Clause (2) of section 111(g) is also of no avail to the landlord for forfeiture because there is no unequivocal and clear disclaimer of title of the landlord. Therefore neither clause (1) nor (2) of section 111(g) are of any avail for forfeiture; GURU AMARJIT SINGH V. RATTAN CHAND, AIR 1994 SC 227.The statement by the tenant that he was not aware of as to who was his landlord cannot be held to be denial of title of landlord and no eviction decree by forfeiture was granted; MUNISAMI NAIDU V. C. RANGANATHAN, AIR 1991 SC 492.It has been held that the Board was entitled to institute proceedings against the tenant as the notice period had expired; VASANT KUMAR RADHAKISHAN VORA V. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY, AIR 1991 SC 14.____________________________________Section 116 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882116. Effect of holding over.—If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in section 106.Illustrations(a) A lets a house to B for five years. B underlets the house to C at a monthly rent of Rs. 100. The five years expire, but C continues in possession of the house and pays the rent to A. C’s lease is renewed from month to month.(b) A lets a farm to B for the life of C. C dies, but B continues in possession with A’s assent. B’s lease is renewed from year to year.