Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Rajendrakumar Bhandari vs Poosammal And Ors. on 19 June, 1974

Nirmala Anand Appellant vs Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 10 May, 2002

The case reported in Rajendra Kumar Bhandari vs. Poosammal & Others [AIR 1975 Mad. 379] is one wherein a Division Bench of the Madras High Court refused to grant the relief of specific performance of an agreement entered into by the plaintiff with a person who was not the owner of the property but a mere tenant entitled to the protection of the city tenants protection with a privilege or personal right which is only heritable but not transferable or saleable, when it was found that even such right also he lost before it could fruition into a transferable or assignable right and that too even before the plaintiff came to court seeking for relief.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 161 - D Raju - Full Document

A.Rajangam vs V.Dhavamani on 6 February, 2017

AIR 1982 SC 20(Smt. Gangabai Vs. Smt. Chhabubai), AIR 1951 SC 177(Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar Vs. Mahabir Prasad and others), AIR 1993 SC 1318(B.R.Mulani Vs. Dr. A.B. Aswathanarayana and Others), AIR 1995 SC 1769( S.Rangaraju Naidu Vs. S. Thiruvarakkarasu), 1995(2) MLJ 118(SC)(N.P.Tirugnanam(died) by LRs Vs. Dr. R.Jagan Mohan Rao and others), CS 301/2007(Duraisingam Vs. S.R.Jagannathan and another), AIR 1983 SC 462(Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another), 2000(1) SCC 712(B.K.Narayana Pillai Vs. Parameswaran Pillai and another), AIR 1960 SC 941(Satyadhyan Ghosal and others Vs. Smt. Deorjin Debi and another), AIR 1979 SC 1436(Smt. Sukhrani(dead) by LRs Vs. Hari Shanker and Others), 1996(6) SCC 96(P.G. Eshwarappa Vs. M. Rudrappa and others), 1996(6) SCC 424(Allahabad Development Authority Vs. Nasiruzzaman and Others), AIR 1966 SC 605(Ambika Prasad Thakur and others etc., Vs. Ram Ekbal Rai(dead) by his LRs and others), 1997 (3) LW 888(Palaniswamy Konar Vs. Gopala Konar and 8 others), AIR 1973 SC 814(Banwari Lal and others Vs. Sukhdarshan Dayal), 1975 (2) MLJ 59(DB)(Rajendrrakumar Bhandari Vs. Poosammal and others), 1982(2) MLJ 314(DB) (P. Thangavelu Vs. R.Dhanalakshmi Ammal and others), 1995(2) LW 808(Seethalakshmi and 5 others Vs. T.Sridhar and another), AIR 1971 SC 1201( The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahamedabad Vs. Haji Abdul Gafur Haji Hussenbhai), AIR 1977 SC 1226(Piarey Lal Vs. Hori Lak), AIR 1963 SC 1917(Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Nikka Singh and another), AIR 1968 SC 466(Smt. Sonawati and others Vs. Sri Ram and another), AIR 1969 SC 204(Ram Kristo Mandal and another Vs. Dhankisto Mandal), AIR 1976 SC 2229(Damadilal and others Vs. Parashram and others), 1990(4) SCC 464( U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Muniruddin), AIR 1990 SC 723(Hari Lal and another Vs. Gajjan and others), AIR 1992 SC 1604(Jagdish Singh Vs. Natthu Singh), 2001(7) SCC 189( Hafazat Hussain Vs. Abdul Majeed @ Sheikh Ballan and others), 2002(9) SCC 532(Bhagwan Bala Mahanavar Vs. Sandipan Lazman Shinde and others), AIR 1965 SC 1364(Sm. Surasaibalani Debi Vs. Phanindra Mohan Majumdar), 85 LW 841(DB) (Panchapakesan(died) and others Vs. Peria Thambi Naicker(died) and others), AIR 1975 SC 1409(Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders), 98 LW 25(SC) (M/s. Variety Emporium Vs. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina), AIR 1962 SC 370(Immani Appa Rao and others Vs. Gollapalli Ramalingamurthi and others), 2013(1) LW 471(SC)(Satya Jain(d) Thr. LRs.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document

Chintamaneni Rama Koteswara Rao And Anr vs Kapilavai Rama Sujatha on 23 September, 2024

17. The next submission made on behalf of the appellants is that these appellants executed Ex.A1 agreement for sale without (2015) 5 SCC 355 1 2022 (3) ALT 447 (AP) 2 18 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 making Mr. Sriram as a party and now compelling the appellants to execute registered sale deed would deprive the title of Mr. Sriram over this property. Parties to contract cannot be forced to convey the title of a third party. It is for that reason, learned counsel urges the court that the judgment of the trial court is erroneous. On these aspects, learned counsel cited Govinda Naicken V. Apathsahaya Iyer3 and Rajendrakumar Bhandari V. Poosammal4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R. Velammal vs R. Daivasigamani And Others on 21 April, 1992

14. Yet another decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant was that reported in Rajendrakumar v. Poosammal, . In that case, this Court pointed out that in view of S. 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the exercise of discretion either in the matter of grant or refusal of decrees for specific performance ought to be made judiciously and judicially, ought not to be arbitrary or unreasonable exercise.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Goldmines Telefilms Pvt.Ltd vs Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt.Ltd on 24 September, 2014

(2012) 12 SCC 155 and the decision in Rajendrakmar Bhandari vs. Poosammal - AIR 1975 Madras 379 to submit that no party can transfer any title, better than what it itself possess. Obviously, there can be no dispute as to such proposition. However, in the present case, it does appear that the entire rights in the said film, save and except 50% of the 'Intellectual Property Rights' had been 26 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2014 23:17:30 ::: dssherla 27 JUDGMENT APPL-458-14 assigned by defendant No.2 to defendant No.1 under link agreement dated 3 August 2012. Therefore, proposition that no man can transfer a title better than what he himself possess, is not at all applicable.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Pushpamary vs Grace Nesammal on 5 January, 2018

13. Learned counsel for the appellants would also rely on the judgments in Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1965 SC 271; Vidyadhar Krishnarao Mungi v. Usman Gani Saheb Konkani, AIR 1974 SC 663; P.Purushotham Reddy v. M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd., AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 141; Basappa v. Basamma, AIR 2004 Madras 390; and Rajendrakumar Bhandari v. Poosammal, AIR 1975 Madras 379, in support of her contention that the agreement of sale was not genuine and it was executed with the sole intention to dispossess the appellants. According to her, the agreement of sale was sham and only nominal and that collusive decree has been obtained with the aid of the collusive agreement. She would also submit that once the parties approach the court with unclean hands, they are not entitled to any equitable relief and, therefore, the execution, pursuant to the collusive decree, is not sustainable in law.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M Govindaraj - Full Document
1