Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Malaimel Thiruvenkatachariar And Anr. vs Pari Seshadri Iyengar And Ors. on 13 March, 1916

A. Muthuswami Ayyar And Anr. vs P.B. Loganatha Mudali And Ors. on 29 October, 1934

15. That circumstance is not available in the present case because defendant 1 had taken a transfer only from the Official Assignee and not from Shanmuga or his heirs. Further if the principle of Section 91,' Trusts Act, is to be invoked, the question as to notice and as to the degree of default of the vendor and the vendee respectively will become material and these questions have not been properly raised or dealt with in the Court below. Having regard to the reasoning of the recent Privy Council cases it is not by any means certain, whether the view taken in Thiruvenkatachariar v. Seshadri Aiyanger 1917 Mad 190 can be safely followed in cases where there is not the additional fact present in that case, viz., of the execution of a registered conveyance, though of a later date in favour of the promisee. Issue 6 in the case raised the question whether the sale by defendants 4 and 5 to the plaintiff was invalid, but the reasons therefor, as gathered from para 21 of the written statement have nothing to do with the point now sought to be raised. We are therefore unable to give any relief to the appellant on the basis of Section 91, Trusts Act.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Marina Appa Rao And Ors. vs Marina Veeranna on 27 November, 1951

In -- 'Thiruvenkatachariar v. Seshadri AJyangar', 30 Mad LJ 559, defendants 1 to 3 who contracted to sell certain immovable property to defendants 4 and 5 sold the same by registered sale deed to the plaintiff who had notice of the prior contract. Subsequently de-fondants 1 to 3 executed a registered sale deed of the same property to defendants 4 and 5 in pursuance of the prior contract and put them in possession. The plaintiff, the purchaser with notice of the prior contract in favour of defendants 4 and 5, filed a suit for possession of the property against his vendors and the persons in whose favour there was a prior agreement to sell and also a sale by the vendors -subsequent to the sale in his favour. The learned Judges held that in view of Sections 1, Trusts Act, plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession from defendants 4 and 5. The learned Chief Justice stated at page 560 :
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

K.S. Rm. Ramanathan Chetty And Ors. vs Ranganathan Chetty And Ors. on 4 May, 1917

In Thiruvenkatachariar v. Seshadri Aiyangar (1916) 80 M.L.J. 559 however, the Chief Justice and Srinivasa Aiyangar, JJ., held that it did not apply to a suit in which the defendant was sought to be ejected by the plaintiffs who had bought the land from the owner by a registered sale-deed but with notice of a prior contract of sale in favour of the defendants, on the ground that the latter obtained a registered conveyance afterwards. In neither of these cases, however, the effect of the pronouncements of the Judicial Committee was taken into consideration.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Narshingappa Parasappa Chavan vs Tippanna Bhimjeppa Santanavar on 11 December, 1935

2. The only question is whether the defendant was the proper person to be sued. It cannot be said that the defendant's occupation of the land was in any way wrongful, since, until the plaintiffs became the actual owners of it by the execution of a formal conveyance, Usufsab remained the owner and was entitled to convey the land to the defendant and the defendant was thus entitled to regard himself as the full owner. Mesne profits are therefore inadmissible. That being so, is the defendant liable to pay damages ? It is true that the defendant had notice of the prior contract of sale in favour of the plaintiffs; but I do not think that this affects the question. The only, authority cited which appears to me in any way to the point is Thiruvenkalachariar v. Sheshadri Iyengar (1916) 30 M. L. J. 559, 561. That was a case of a plaintiff who bought certain property with notice of a prior agreement of sale and sued to evict the persons in whose favour the prior agreement of sale had been effected; and it was held that he could not do so. In the course of the judgment it was said. (p. 561):-
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1