Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Chanda Sab vs Jamshed Khan And Others on 3 June, 1993

A.G. Pasupathy vs Mohamed Ismail on 14 October, 1997

this Court also dismissed the revision. So, if these are the only facts, there cannot be any question of restitution, in such cases. The decree was neither varied nor set aside, and the property was also taken delivery. So, naturally, the observations relied on by learned Counsel for respondent can only be obiter which could not have arisen for consideration in that case. In the case cited, learned Judge also found that the landlord has not committed any fraud, and the ex parte, order of eviction or for delivery of possession is valid. Having found that the ex parte order was valid and not required to be set aside, there cannot be any question of applicability of Section 144, and the question of restitution could not have arisen at all.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Basant Ram And Ors. vs Smt. Devi And Ors. on 16 November, 1999

4. In our view the above principle will apply in the case in hand as it is the decree-holder who has put the respondent No. 2 in possession and, therefore, when the decree has been set aside he is bound to restore to the judgment-debtor what he gained under the decree and subsequently transferred to the respondent No. 2." Same was the view that prevailed with the Karnataka High Court in the case of Chanda Sab v. Jamshed Khan, (1994) 2 Rent LR 292. Herein also an ex parte order of eviction was passed. The landlord took possession in execution. The ex parte order of eviction was set aside. Meanwhile the landlord had transferred the property. It was held that tenant is entitled for restitution not only against the landlord but also against the transferee. The conclusions drawn by the said Court are :--
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document
1