Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.49 seconds)
Documents citing Jibhaoo Harisingh Rajput vs Ajab Singh Fakira Rajput on 22 February, 1952

Gajbinkar Arjun And Anr. vs Siddipet Municipality Rep. By Its ... on 26 December, 2007

21. As could be seen from Section 54 of the 1882 Act referred to above, the alleged agreement of sale does not by itself create any interest in or charge over the property in dispute in favour of the petitioners. Even the statutory charge envisaged in Section 55(6)(b) cannot be pressed into service for claiming compensation against a third party, who is not claiming its right over the property through the alleged owner.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.M.V. Krishnamachari vs M.D. Dhanalakshmi Ammal And Ors. on 16 April, 1965

The same view was taken by a Bench of the Bombay High Court in Jibhaoo v. Ajab Sing. . In that case the entire price had been paid to the vendor in pursuance of a sale which however was found to be invalid. The purchaser applied under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act for his claim being upheld as a mortgagee with regard to the purchase price paid by him and it was held that under S. 55(6)(b) the purchaser was entitled to a charge over the property agreed to be sold the moment the purchase price was paid by him. Vide also Mullah, Transfer of Property Act 4th Edn. page 319. The principle of these decisions clearly applied to the instant case. This statutory charge differs from a contractual charge and is based upon principles of justice equity and good conscience. In addition there is a right of substituted security which the Hindu law recognised in the case of a mortgage created by a co-parcener of the family.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maddula Kasi Viswanadham vs Chalasani Radhakrishnarao on 20 April, 1972

On the basis of these decisions it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant defendant, that the defendant who has parted with the sum of Rs.8,000/- under an agreement of sale, has also a saleable interest and for this contention, the counsel relies on the decision in Jibhaoo v. Ajab Singh, , In the decision the question rested on the interpretation of Section 24 (1) of the Bombay Agriculturists Debtors' Relief Act, and the remarks relating to the charge created under Section 55 (6) 9b) of the Transfer of Property Act made therein do not apply to the facts of this case. Under Section 55 (6) (b) of the T.P. Act, a buyer is entitled to a charge only if he had not improperly declined to accept delivery of the property. There is no evidence in this case now as to what had happened with regard to the transactions under the agreement of sale. Moreover, in the suit the Court had found that the agreement has not been established. Therefore the defendant cannot claim to be a holder of a charge on the land for a part of the purchase money paid by him and therefore he has a saleable interest in the land. This objection is therefore over ruled.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Maharu Bhika And Anr. vs Daga Nathu on 8 November, 1955

If it is shown by evidence that the oral transfer was intended to operate as a mortgage it would enable the debtor to claim adjustment of the debt; if however it appeared on evidence that the oral transfer was intended to operate as a sale then after the lapse of 12 years the alleged purchaser would be able to set up an adverse title and there would be no question of adjusting debts any longer, In the case before Bavdekar J. it had been urged by the applicant that the original transaction was not one of a sale but that of a mortgage and that the property had been transferred to the creditor by way of security and Bavdekar J. thought that this allegation had to be examined and so he was disposed to give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in that behalf. Mr. Jahagirdar argues that the order of remand passed by Bavdekar J. and the reasons set out hy the learned Judge in support of this order are substantially inconsistent with the view taken by Rajadhyaksha and Vyas JJ. in 'Jibhaoos case (A), to which I have already referred.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1