Land Act Mauritius

Subject to all restrictions, reservations conditions and exceptions as set forth in deeds forming the chain of title.

The proprietary right is protected by overriding interest under Section 70(1)(f) of Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA1925). Limitation Act 1980 stated requirement towards the squatter where he is in factual possession to the land for a period of 12 years continuously and is not objected by the land owner, he will obtain a title towards the land. However, Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) brings changes towards this proprietary right where it provides a new set of rules which

Violet’s case is similar to the case Re Megevand; Ex parte Delhasse (1878) 7 Ch D 511 in which the court considered the creditor a partner of the business concerned given that the creditor (Delhasse) had the right to control the property, had all the rights a dormant business partner would be expected to have, and rights to share profits and liability to share in losses.

Due to its nature, partnership is generally liable for the acts of the individual partners if committed in the course of the partnership business. However, liabilities of every partner may be regulated by the written agreement signed by partners. If no written agreement is signed by partners, liabilities of the partnership are regulated by the Partnership Act. If one of the partners retires, he or she may not be liable for the future debts of partnership if an official notice of the change is sent to creditors and the public. However, there were no official notice sent by the partners in the case; therefore, Toby may be liable for the debts of partnership. Due to the death of the third partner, partnership may be dissolved. In order to pay off the debts, assets should be sold and partners are free to continue the same kind of business after the dissolution of the

In Chapter 6, Wilkins discusses how the disclaimer clauses. These clauses keep states from exercising authority on Indian land (180). They are an “important but often overlooked tool in the arsenal available to tribes to assert their own sovereignty against state threats” (177). A specific example of a disclaimer clause is Wisconsin’s territorial disclaimer of 1836 which prohibited territories or states from having any authority on Indian land (180). In Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council (1959) it was declared that Indian tribes actually have a higher status than states (179). This was a major victory for Indians in their fight for sovereignty. United States v. Rickert (1903) was also a win for sovereignty in that the Court prohibited South Dakota from taxing Indian land (185).After the verdict in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996), the balance of power between state and federal government leaned towards the states. Before this, negotiations with tribes had been conducted at the federal level and not with states (187). This was against the idea of sovereignty because now the states had more power over the tribes and could abuse that power for personal gain.

• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.

11. [LO 1] Absent any special elections, what effect does a sale of partnership interest have on the partnership?

Indigenous people have long been denied the entitlement of land rights by Australia. Law reform has been both effective as well as ineffective in achieving genuine access and control of land for the indigenous people. Law reform aims to reinforce and strengthen justice, through the process of first examining existing laws, and by then revoking, amending or creating the necessary changes to a law. This procedure is acted in accordance with judicial bodies, by the result of case law along with statutory law. The Native Title Act of 1993 was achieved through statutory reform. This act took place by cause of the High Courts settlement of the second Mabo case of 1992. Although law reform has not been exclusively effective, it has been relatively

One of the key challenges facing the development of infra¬structure in India is the acquisition of land. Landowner¬ship confers tangible benefits such as shelter and liveli-hood, as well as intangible benefits such as security and a stand¬ing in society. Landowners are thus often reluctant to part with their land unless mutually acceptable terms including compensation are agreed upon. Problems arise when land is required for “pub¬lic purpose” and the state can invoke laws that allow for com¬pulsory acquisition through ‘eminent domain’ . Often, the land acquisition process is neither consultative nor transparent. Further, land-titles are unclear and identifying parties eligible for compensation is rendered difficult. Finally, the compensa¬tion, and resettlement and

Drafters of the Internal Revenue Code provided adjustments to the basis of partnership property as a consequence to the sale or exchange of a partnership interest, including transfer of such an interest on the death of a partner provided the partnership made an election or the partnership has a substantial built-in loss. Absent a basis adjustment, the incoming/transferee partner will be taxed on the same gain when realized by the partnership if the interest transferred had appreciated. The selling/transferor partner will recognize gain the sale regardless of consequences to the remaining partners and partnership. Likewise if the partnership interest depreciated, the transferor partner would recognize a loss on the sale, and the

Being one of the most extensive law reforms of the Law Commission, Land Registration Act 2002 aims to create a flawless legal framework for land registration, especially in terms of conveyancing with emphasis on overriding interests and adverse possession. It is agreed that the Land Registration Act 2002 (hereafter LRA 2002), by putting emphasis on strict registration, moved the idea of land ownership from ownership by possession to bureaucratization of title via registration. Therefore, LRA 2002 is said to bring further strictness and clarity to land ownership and subsequent conveyancing. In conjunction, LRA 2002 was expected to bring an “e-conveyancing revolution” to land registration which was awaited to be a major success. Although steps are taken towards this development, it is claimed that there is still long way to go before a complete and problem-free e-conveyancing system. Apart from matters relating to conveyancing, LRA 2002 consists of sections regarding overriding interests where their number and scope are widely reduced with specifications of registration introduced. Moreover, the Act includes strictly drafted provisions about adverse possession, aiming to bring further restrictions to this matter by bringing further difficulties to the acquisition of title and therefore shifting from a squatter prone approach to a registered owner supporting view.

* The ownership of the partners is dissolved and they become mere employees who are responsible to the shareholders and Board of Directors

A bench of the Supreme Court has in Bankura Municipality v. Lalji Raja and Sons[2] held that:

The government's move to acquire fertile agriculture lands for industry has agitated the farmers who are dependent on the lands for livelihood. Ever since the notification regarding the acquisition was published by the state revenue department on December 4 2008, the farmers to be affected have been holding meetings in Haripura, Charal, Bol and Siyawada villages and have decided to launch an agitation against the acquisition of their lands. However Government declared that it was not taking for free and the price of the land at Rs 1,200 per square

The Land Registration Act (LRA) 1925 has drawn much flak over the years with regards to one of its most important provisions on overriding interests (OI), which often goes unnoticed until it swoops up and takes priority over the rights of a future purchaser. These interests often come in the form of other occupiers in the property with an equitable interest and, like in the case of Boland , this leaves the lender in a tight spot when they find out about the existence of these interests only after they have initiate proceedings for possession against the defaulting borrowers. Due to the other occupier’s concealed nature on the property register, the lenders have regained their footing by applying the concept of overreaching and ….. The Law Commission, on the other hand, contemplated abolishing these interest altogether but did not go to that extent because it was neither feasible nor desirable Instead, they shrank their impact on land by reforming the operation and scope of the OI. With LRA 2002 sch 3 para 2, lenders now have more control over what may bite them. …. This essay will access…. with a focus on how the lending world have dealt with the implications of Boland…. The best way to access the impact of … would be to go through the pre – post blabla to show how the thing has balanced.