Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Bandaru Rattayya And Ors. vs Gaddam Chandrayya And Ors. on 19 December, 1947

Yeditha Satyanarayanamurty And Ors. vs Tadi Subrahmanyam And Ors. on 5 January, 1959

In Rattayya v. Chandrayya, 1948-1 Mad LJ 392 : (AIR 1948 Mad 526), it was ruled by Satyanarayana Eao J., that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act requires that there should be the actual signature of somebody who is the plaintiff or of some one on his behalf. In the absence of it, Section 53-A could not be availed of by the defendant. The learned Judge in repelling the contention similar to the one put forward in this case, observed as follows : --
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Raja Sagi Padmanbharaju vs Sagi Lakshmi Kumara Raju And Ors. on 22 April, 1966

(20) Now, in giving a somewhat narrow connotation to the words "signed .... on his behalf" occurring in Section 53-A of the Act, the learned Judges approved and adopted the view of Satyanarayana Rao, J., in Rattayya v. G. Chandrayya, AIR 1948 Mad 526. In that case that learned Judge had regarded as decisive the absence of words like "or deemed to have been signed by the plaintiff himself or by someone on his behalf, and on the language of the section there was no scope for inferring that the father as the manager of a Hindu joint family must be deemed to have entered into the contract be deemed to have entered into the contract on behalf of himself but also on behalf of his sons.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Labhchand Shankarlal And Ors. vs Sharifabi on 20 December, 1960

In taking this view the learned Judge has placed reliance on a decision reported in Rattayya v. Chandrayya AIR 1948 Mad 526. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs' suit for possession was decreed in the trial Court. On appeal by the defendant, the decree of the trial Court has been reversed. The appellate Court has affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. It, disagreeing with the trial Court, took the view that the defendant was entitled to call in aid Section 53A of the Act. In the opinion of the learned Judge the plaintiffs were persons covered by the expression "any person claiming under him" (transferor) occurring in Section 53A of the Act. He therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1