Which one of the following cases does not pertain to the doctrine of ‘part performance’?
Ariff v. Rai Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur addressed part performance under the law before section 53A applied to the transaction. Probodh Kumar Das v. Dantmara Tea Co. Ltd. and…
Choose your answer
Which one of the following cases does not pertain to the doctrine of ‘part performance’?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer D
Ariff v. Rai Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur addressed part performance under the law before section 53A applied to the transaction. Probodh Kumar Das v. Dantmara Tea Co. Ltd. and Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai considered the protection under section 53A. Rambaran Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra, [1967] 1 SCR 293, concerned pre-emption, including the covenant’s effect under sections 14 and 40.
Option feedback
Option A
The Privy Council considered the English equitable doctrine of part performance and whether it could override the Indian statutory requirements then in force.
Option B
The Privy Council explained that section 53A protects possession in the circumstances it prescribes and does not confer an independent right of action.
Option C
The Supreme Court examined the conditions for invoking section 53A, including acts in furtherance of the contract and readiness to perform.
Option D
The Supreme Court considered a covenant of pre-emption and the rule against perpetuity, rather than part performance.
Practice for these exams
-
All India Bar Examination (AIBE)
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
IIT Kharagpur LL.M. Entrance
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
Uttarakhand Judicial Services
-
CLAT PG
Subject revision for a passage-based exam
-
CUET PG Law (LL.M.)
Subject revision
-
AILET PG
Subject revision
-
Bihar Judicial Services
Subject revision