Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing T.Muthukumarasamy vs J.Selvasundarraj on 3 March, 2017

N.M.Subramaniam .. Review vs Unnammal (Died) on 29 September, 2022

Therefore, a reading of the provisions of Section 47(1) clearly shows that the questions between the parties to a suit relating to the execution , discharge or satisfaction has to be determined by the executing Court and not by the separate Court and explanation (2)(b) says that question relating to delivery of possession is also a question relating to the 35/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Petition No.113 of 2019 execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Further, when the earlier execution petition was dismissed, it was dismissed on the ground that the execution petition ought to have filed within one year from the date when the date of the confirmation of the sale. Liberty has been granted to the plaintiff on the premise that the suit would be one based on title as the plaintiff would be filing a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of being an owner of the property. This observation no doubt has been followed in an earlier judgment of this Court reported in 2017(6) CTC 602 [T.Muthukumarasamy vs. J. Selvasundarraj] .
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Balakrishnan Vs Malaiyandi Konar [(2006)3 SCC 49], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restored the original position of twin remedies to which an auction 8/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 purchaser is entitled to, and this Court had followed the dictum in Malayandi Konar case along with the ratio in Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad and others [(1973) 2 SCC 467], and had held in T.Muthukumarasamy Vs J.Selvasundarraj [2017 (6) CTC 602] that a suit by an auction purchaser for possession is maintainable. Discussion & Decision:
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Balakrishnan Vs Malaiyandi Konar [(2006)3 SCC 49], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restored the original position of twin remedies to which an auction 8/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 purchaser is entitled to, and this Court had followed the dictum in Malayandi Konar case along with the ratio in Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad and others [(1973) 2 SCC 467], and had held in T.Muthukumarasamy Vs J.Selvasundarraj [2017 (6) CTC 602] that a suit by an auction purchaser for possession is maintainable. Discussion & Decision:
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Balakrishnan Vs Malaiyandi Konar [(2006)3 SCC 49], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restored the original position of twin remedies to which an auction purchaser is entitled to, and this Court had followed the dictum in Malayandi Konar case along with the ratio in Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt 8/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 Bhagwati Prasad and others [(1973) 2 SCC 467], and had held in T.Muthukumarasamy Vs J.Selvasundarraj [2017 (6) CTC 602] that a suit by an auction purchaser for possession is maintainable. Discussion & Decision:
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Balakrishnan Vs Malaiyandi Konar [(2006)3 SCC 49], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restored the original position of twin remedies to which an auction purchaser is entitled to, and this Court had followed the dictum in Malayandi Konar case along with the ratio in Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt 8/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 Bhagwati Prasad and others [(1973) 2 SCC 467], and had held in T.Muthukumarasamy Vs J.Selvasundarraj [2017 (6) CTC 602] that a suit by an auction purchaser for possession is maintainable. Discussion & Decision:
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Balakrishnan Vs Malaiyandi Konar [(2006)3 SCC 49], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restored the original position of twin remedies to which an auction purchaser is entitled to, and this Court had followed the dictum in Malayandi Konar case along with the ratio in Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt 8/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 Bhagwati Prasad and others [(1973) 2 SCC 467], and had held in T.Muthukumarasamy Vs J.Selvasundarraj [2017 (6) CTC 602] that a suit by an auction purchaser for possession is maintainable. Discussion & Decision:
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Balakrishnan Vs Malaiyandi Konar [(2006)3 SCC 49], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restored the original position of twin remedies to which an auction purchaser is entitled to, and this Court had followed the dictum in Malayandi Konar case along with the ratio in Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt 8/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 Bhagwati Prasad and others [(1973) 2 SCC 467], and had held in T.Muthukumarasamy Vs J.Selvasundarraj [2017 (6) CTC 602] that a suit by an auction purchaser for possession is maintainable. Discussion & Decision:
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Balakrishnan Vs Malaiyandi Konar [(2006)3 SCC 49], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restored the original position of twin remedies to which an auction 8/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 purchaser is entitled to, and this Court had followed the dictum in Malayandi Konar case along with the ratio in Harnandrai Badridas Vs Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad and others [(1973) 2 SCC 467], and had held in T.Muthukumarasamy Vs J.Selvasundarraj [2017 (6) CTC 602] that a suit by an auction purchaser for possession is maintainable. Discussion & Decision:
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document
1   2 Next