Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (2.39 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Shaker Sahib vs Abdul Rahiman Sahib And Anr. on 1 November, 1922

Mahommadalli Sahib vs Abdul Khadir Saheb on 18 August, 1927

It may be that the present question did not exactly arise for decision in Abdul Shaker Sahib v. Abdul Rahiman Sahib (1922) I.L.R. 46 M. 148 : 44 M.L.J. 107, but the question was fully considered and dealt with by both the learned Judges in that case and their view has been followed by Phillips, J., in Rama Bhatlu v. Annayya Bhatlu (1925) 49 M.L.J. 152, in which the question did arise for decision. The weight of authority, therefore, is decidedly in favour of the view that' even in the case of a decree framed like the decree in this case, which I may observe is the form which has been in vogue in such cases the Court which passed the decree has the power to enlarge the time allowed for the payment of the purchase money. There can be no doubt as to the desirability of the Court having such a power. If it has not, its power to render justice in such cases will be seriously crippled.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Narasimhan vs Balammal on 12 September, 1988

17. As regards the requirement of positive refusal by the decree-holder for the purpose of rescinding the contract, a later Division Bench of this Court in Saraswathi alias Kalpan v. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar 80 L.W. 454, expressed its dissent from the observations made in Abdul Shaker's case I.L.R. 46 Mad. 148. After referring to the earlier Bench judgment, the later Bench observed thus:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

K. Saraswathi (Alias) K. Kalpana vs P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar on 2 November, 1976

in suits under Specific Relief Act where the decree has named as here a time within which payment should be made the Court can extend that period and relied for this conclusion on the decision of this Court in Abdul Shaker Sahib v. Abdul Rahiman Sahib and Anr. (1923) 44 M.L.J. 107 : I.L.R. 46 Mad. 148 A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 284 already referred to. The other learned Judge, who constituted the Bench namely, Thiruvenkata Achariar, J., also, took the same view. The learned Judge, after referring to the earlier decisions, observed:
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Amirthammal And Ors. vs M.K. Mani Iyer on 25 September, 1981

Therefore, as something has to be done to ascertain the additional liability of the plaintiff, the decree can be taken to be only a preliminary decree, n Abdul Shakir Sahib v. Abdul Rahiman Sahib (1923) I.L.R. 46 Mad. 148 : 44 M.L.J. 107 a Division Bench of this Court had held that where, in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain lands, the original Court passed a decree directing the defendant to execute a conveyance on the plaintiff paying the price within a certain time, the decree is in the nature of a preliminary decree, the original Court keeping control over the action and having full power to make any just and necessary orders therein, including inappropriate cases the extension of the time limited by the decree. It is, therefore, not possible for me to accept the contention of the appellants that the decree of the trial Court directing execution of the sale deed should be taken to be a final decree and as such executable. Once the decree is treated to be a preliminary decree then on the analogy of partnership suits and suits for accounts. Articles 136 and 137 of the Limitation Act will not apply.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next