Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Govinda Naicken And Anr. vs Apathsahaya Iyer Alias Ayawaiyer on 5 January, 1912

Baluswami Aiyar vs Lakshmana Aiyar And Ors. on 22 February, 1921

9. Where a person sues for specific performance of an agreement to convey and simply impleads the party bound to carry out the agreement, there is no necessity to determine the question of the vendor's title, and the fast that the title which the purchaser may acquire might be defensible by a third party is no ground for refusing specific performance, if the purchaser is willing to take such title as the vendor has. But where a party seeking specific performance seeks to bind the interests of persons not parties to the contract, alleging grounds which under Hindu Law would bind their interests and enable the vendor to give a good title as against them, and make them parties, it is difficult to see how the question as to the right of the contracting parties to convey any interest except his own can be avoided and a decree passed, the effect of which will merely be to create a multiplicity of suits. As pointed oat in Govinda Naicken v. Apathtahaya Iyer 13 Ind. Cas. 47 : (1912) M.W.N. 87 : 11 M.L.T. 87 : 22 M.L.J. 257: 37 M. 403, the execution of a sale-deed by a person in respect of property which he has no right to alienate would be an act improper, in itself, as it is calculated to throw a cloud over the title of the other parties entitled to shares in the property and would give them a cause of nation for a suit."
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baluswami Aiyar vs Lakshmana Aiyar And Ors. on 22 February, 1921

10. Where a person sues for specific performance of an agreement to convey and simply impleads the party bound to carry out the agreement there is no necessity to determine the question of the vendor's title, and the fact that the title which the purchaser may acquire might be defeasible by a third party is no ground for refusing specific performance if the purchaser is willing to take such title as the vendor has. But where a party seeking specific performance seeks to bind the interests of persons not parties to the contract alleging grounds which under Hindu Law would bind their interests and enable the vendor to give a good title as against them and make them parties, it is difficult to see how the question as to the right of the contracting parties to convey any interest except his own can be avoided and a decree passed the effect of which will merely be to create a multiplicity of suits. As pointed out in Govinda Naicker v. Apatsahaya Ayyar (1912) M.W.N. 87 the execution Of a sale-deed by a person in respect of property which he has no right to alienate "would be an act improper in itself as it is calculated to throw a cloud over the title of the other parties entitled to share in the property and would give them a cause of action for a suit".
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Baluswami Aiyar vs Lakshmana Aiyar And Three Ors. on 22 February, 1921

30. Where a person sues for specific performance of an agreement to convey and simply impleads the party bound to carry out the agreement there is no necessity to determine the question of the vendor's title, and the fact that the title which the purchaser may acquire might be defeasible by a third party is no ground for refusing specific performance if the purchaser is willing to take such title as the vendor has. But where a party seeking specific performance seeks to bind the interests of persons not parties to the contract, alleging grounds which under Hindu Law would bind their interests and enable the vendor to give a good title as against them and makes them parties, it is difficult; to see how the question as to the right of the contracting party to convey any interest except his own can be avoided and a decree passed, the effect of which will merely be to create a multiplicity of suits. As pointed out in Govinda Naicken v. Apathsahaya, Iyer (1914) I.L.R., 37 Mad., 403 the execution of a sale-deed by a person in respect of property which he has no right to alienate:
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

S.V. Sankaralinga Nadar vs P.T.S. Ratnaswami Nadar And Ors. on 17 August, 1951

In 'Govinda Naicken v. Apathsahaya Iyer,' 37 Mad 403 the facts were that the defendants agreed to sell a property in which he had only a half share, the other share belonging to his divided brother. He resisted the suit for specific performance on the ground that a sale deed in respect of the whole property would lead to litigation and cast a cloud on the title of the co-owner. On this ground specific performance was refused. Then with reference to the granting of relief under Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act the learned Judges Sundara Aiyar and Spencer JJ. observe at page 405:
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Hpa International vs Bhagwandas Fateh Chand Daswani And ... on 13 July, 2004

As the lesser relief was claimed after long delay and the contract was found to be indivisible and inseparable, the partial relief was denied in the case of Govinda Naicken & Anr. Vs. Apathsahaya Iyer alias Ayawaiyer [ 37 Madras Series 403] "But when the family is divided as here, section 17 distinctly prohibits a Court from directing the specific performance of a part of a contract except in accordance with the preceding sections. Even in cases where the conditions of section 15 are fulfilled the use of the word 'may' indicates that the granting of a decree for part performance is discretionary with the Court, and we should hold that when there has been great delay in attempting to enforce a contract and circumstances have greatly changed either from a rise of prices or other causes in the interval, the Courts would be justified in refusing to given legal effect to an inequitable arrangement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Ms. Promilla Sethi & Ors. vs Sh. Inder Narain & Ors. on 24 December, 2010

In Govinda Naicken (supra) the agreement to sell was executed by the Defendant alone who stated in the document itself that the lands were being enjoyed in equal shares by the Defendant and his divided elder brother and that they had been purchased RFA No. 13/1975 Page 16 of 34 out of the money belonging to them severally. The Court observed that the Plaintiff in the said case wanted the Court to compel the Defendant to execute a deed of sale for the whole property and if he refuses, to issue one in his name under the seal of the Court and to allow to make what he can out of the title thus conveyed. The Court held such a request to be inadmissible and observed that the defendant therein had nothing which was capable of transferring in the moiety of the property of which he is not the owner and is not in possession and it was impossible to sever the execution of the deed from the transfer to be effected thereby and to treat them as separate acts of the same person. Thus, the decisions relied upon by the Appellant are of no avail in the facts of the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document

Chintamaneni Rama Koteswara Rao And Anr vs Kapilavai Rama Sujatha on 23 September, 2024

17. The next submission made on behalf of the appellants is that these appellants executed Ex.A1 agreement for sale without (2015) 5 SCC 355 1 2022 (3) ALT 447 (AP) 2 18 Dr.VRKS,J A.S.No.553 of 2013 making Mr. Sriram as a party and now compelling the appellants to execute registered sale deed would deprive the title of Mr. Sriram over this property. Parties to contract cannot be forced to convey the title of a third party. It is for that reason, learned counsel urges the court that the judgment of the trial court is erroneous. On these aspects, learned counsel cited Govinda Naicken V. Apathsahaya Iyer3 and Rajendrakumar Bhandari V. Poosammal4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

I. Nagiah vs A. Venkatarama Sastrulu And Seven Ors. on 19 April, 1912

In Govinda Naicken v. Apathsahaya Iyer (1912) M.W.N. 87 these cases were again considered and Srinivasa Reddi v. Sivarama Reddi (1902) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 320 was distinguished from the case before the Court and was explained as proceeding on the ground that an undivided father has an interest in every portion of the undivided property, and that therefore Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act does not apply. To us, however, it appears that the consideration that an undivided father has an interest in every part of the undivided property in no way takes the case out of the operation of the section which runs thus: "Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, and the part which must be left unperformed forms a considerable portion of the whole,...the is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance." We think the words of the section apply where a member of an undivided family agrees to sell part of the joint property in which he has only a share; and the present case is a particularly plain one, because according to the plaintiff's own evidence the first defendant agreed to get the other members of the family to execute the sale deed. Further the contract has been decided in the present suit not to be binding on the other members of the family; and to decree specific performance against the first defendant only would be merely encouraging useless litigation.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1