Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Tara Chand vs Radha Swami Sat Sang Sabha And Ors. on 24 November, 1933

Gopal And Ors. vs Hari Dutt Sharma on 24 July, 1981

In Tara Chand v. Radha Swami (AIR 1934 All 343) (FE), it was held that the burden of proving that an indefeasible title is acquired under a deed of exchange is upon the vendee and he must discharge it. In Satar Mohammed v. Sarafuddin, (AIR 1962 J&K 79), it was held that a pre-emption must have a subsisting right of pre-emption on (1) the date of sale, (2) the date of institution of the suit and (3) the date of the decree. The vendee can acquire a right of pre-emption before the date of the decree and can non-suit the plaintiff.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Alimullah vs Mohammad Khalil And Anr. on 29 February, 1940

The exchange was effected by means of a registered instrument and, therefore, conveyed good title to Alimullah to the one pie share. It is, however, a fact that Alimullah was not solely entitled to the two plots given by him in exchange to Mohammad Yakub. In view of the defect in the title of Alimullah to the two plots Mohammad Yakub had by virtue of Section 119, T.P. Act, a right to claim damages from Alimullah or to sue for the return of the one pie share. It is this latter right that Yakub exercised by bringing the suit referred to above against Alimullah. That suit, as stated before, was decreed and Yakub got back his one pie share. This, however, happened after the date of the institution of the suit for pre-emption filed by Mohammad Khalil.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ch. Manphool Singh vs Ch. Ram Bilas on 1 April, 1947

10. The matter was considered in Tara Chand v. Radha Swami 21 A.I.R. 1934 All. 343. A line of distinction has been drawn between a transaction on the basis of which the pre-emption is resisted, ejected prior to the sale and one brought about subsequent to it. It has been held that if it precedes the sale, it is enough to arm the vendee with a right of resisting the suit, even though it conveys a defeasible interest. If, on the other hand, it came into existence after the sale, the vendee must acquire an indefeasible interest before he is entitled to claim (resist?) pre-emption. Sulaiman C.J. delivering the judgment of the Court, observed as follows at page 307:
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1