Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Nachappa Goundan vs Samiappa Goundan And Anr. on 4 January, 1946

Chullikana Shambatta And Ors. vs Cherakoodlu Narayana Bhatta And Ors. on 1 December, 1950

29. I have given this resume of the decision of Somayya & Yahya Ali, JJ. in 'Nachappa Goundan v. Samiappa Goundan', AIR (34) 1947 Mad 18, in order to show that the passage in their judgment on which I am relying is in the nature of a considered dictum occurring in the course of an erudite & exhaustive treatment of the subject of subrogation which is highly instructive.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Thomas vs Victor on 19 September, 1975

12. Though these observations seem to support the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, to a great extent, in making these submissions, he ignores the recitals occurring in Exhibit A-2, since thereunder it is stated that the possession under the mortgage deed shall be on the basis of Exhibit A-2 also. Under these circumstances, the mortgagors ought to consolidate both the mortgages and redeem Exhibit A-1 and A-2 to together and piecemeal redemption was impossible as per the law under the Transfer of Property Act that stood prior to the Amending Act II of 1929. This right of consolidation was not a mere right to have the advantage of an existing statute, but it was a vested right in the property. This is the dictum laid down in Nachappa Goundan v. Samiappa Goundan (1946) 2 M.L.J. 35 : 230 I.C. 387 : A.I.R. 1947 Mad. 18.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - S Mohan - Full Document

Ahmed Ali Khan Bahadur (Died) And Anr. vs Banguluru Veeralla And Ors. on 20 June, 1958

To the same effect are the observations in Nachappa Goundan v. Samiappa Goundan, AIH 1947 Mad 18 and of Pal J., in Muhammad Juman Mia v. Akali Mudiani, AIR 1943 Cal 577 and also of Amir Ali J., in Ramdhone v. Kedarnath, AIR 1938 Cal 1. It is needless to add to the citation in support of a principle which is so well established and recognised. As observed by Subba Rao J., as a corollary to the position above stated, it follows that if the decree or order does not create a right in any party in respect of any specific property transferred, no question of lis pendens can possibly arise.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 39 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

N. Chellappan Pillai And Anr. vs A. Anthoni And Ors. on 24 June, 1981

The learned Judge relied on Nachiappa Goundan v. Samiappa Goundan, (1946) 2 Mad LJ 35 : (AIR 1947 Mad 18) in support of his view, that the right of consolidation was not a mere right to have the advantage of an existing status and that it was a vested right in property. There is nothing in this decision which runs counter to the view that we are taking. We do not, therefore, think it necessary to refer to this decision more elaborately.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1