Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.98 seconds)
Documents citing Marina Appa Rao And Ors. vs Marina Veeranna on 27 November, 1951

Gomi Bai And Ors. vs Uma Rastogi And Anr. on 29 December, 2004

78. Learned Counsel for the fifth respondent opposes the submission and contends that when D.W.3 deposed that they are not aware of the oral agreement of sale, onus was entirely on the appellant. As the 'appellant has not' even pleaded in her plaint any amount of evidence even by D.W.3, to that effect cannot be looked into. I see force in the submission. As held by various Courts, in a case of this nature, the plaintiff has to necessarily take two important steps; (i) an averment has to be made in the plaint that subsequent purchaser arrayed as defendant has notice of prior agreement and is not a bona fide purchaser for value; (ii) the plaintiff has to pray the Trial Court to enforce specific performance of contract of sale by directing his/her vendors as well as subsequent purchaser to execute sale deed [See Para 7 in Appa Rao v. Veeranna (supra)]. The plaint of the appellant on both these aspects is silent and therefore the evidence of D.W.3 or for that matter the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is of no avail to rescue the appellant from the situation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 66 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bhagwandas Parsadilal vs Surajmal And Anr. on 24 December, 1960

Till such, a sale-deed is executed, in consequence of the decree in the suit for specific performance, by the subsequent purchaser in favour of the present appellant, the latter cannot, on the strength of the prior agreement acquire any title to the property agreed to be sold. Reliance was placed by the learned Judge for this observation on the decision in Appa Rao v. Veeranna, AIR 1953 Mad 409.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Soni Lalji Jetha & Ors vs Soni Kalidas Devchand & Ors on 14 October, 1966

(See also Appa Rao v. Veeranna).(2) It is thus clear that though the sale dated September 10, 1930 in favour of Kanji and Lalji was not void but voidable at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 by reason of their earlier contract and though as between the mortgagors and Kanji and Lalji the sale was valid and binding it was subject to the right of specific performance which respondents 1 and 2 had acquired and Kanji and Lalji being in a fiduciary position, their possession was not adverse as against respondents 1 and 2. Therefore their suit for redemption cannot be said to be barred even though the statutory period had expired. We thus arrive at the same result which the High Court reached though on different reasons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 26 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Chinna Vanan vs Alamelu And Ors. on 26 July, 1974

In Marina Appa Rao v. Marina Veeranna , this Court considered the effect of execution of a sale deed by the original owner alone without the subsequent purchaser joining the sale. After noting that the title of the subsequent purchaser with notice of the prior agreement in favour of another is subject to the obligation under Section 91 of the Act, Subba Rao J. (as he then was), held that if the contract for the purchase of immoveable property with the original owner does not create any interest in him, the sale effected by the owner after he had already parted with the title to a third party, to the original agreement-holder cannot also confer a title. The agreement-holder can acquire title to the property only if proper conveyance is executed by the subsequent purchaser as well.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

K.Sikkandhar Basha vs J.Basha on 29 July, 2024

In Marina Appa Rao v. Marina Veeranna , this Court considered the effect of execution of a sale deed by the original owner alone without the subsequent purchaser joining the sale. After noting that the title of the subsequent purchaser with notice of the prior agreement in favour of another is subject to the obligation under Section 91 of the Act, Subba Rao J. (as he then was), held that if the contract for the purchase of immoveable property with the original owner does not create any interest in him, the sale effected by the owner after he had already parted with the title to a third party, to the original agreement-holder cannot also confer a title. The agreement-holder can acquire title to the property only if proper conveyance is executed by the subsequent purchaser as well.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Sivagnanam - Full Document
1