Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing S. Subba Rao vs Mangavalli Venkataseshacharlu And ... on 14 November, 1947

Sambanda Mudaliar vs Muthuswami Mudaliar on 17 July, 1987

Held, that A, having purchased the property pendente lite, must be treated as a representative in interest of the judgment debtor and, therefore, a petition by the mortgagee decree holder for possession of the property purchased by him was maintainable against A. The said decision also is applicable on all fours to the facts of this case. In view of the ratio in the decisions cited above, I am of the view that the money decree-holder being the representative in interest of the judgment debtor is bound by the mortgage decree and that he had purchased only the right of redemption of the mortgage debt.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mohanlal vs Mishrimal And Ors. on 1 September, 1970

29. Learned Counsel for the respondent had also urged that the present suit is barred by Section 47 C.P.C. inasmuch as the plaintiff is a repesentative of the judgment-debtor and is bound by the decree passed in the suit for spefic performance against him. Reliance was placed on Parmeshari Din v. Ram Charan AIR 1937 PC 260, Sant Kaur v. Teja Singh (supra), Subba Rao v. Venkataseshacharlu AIR 1949 Mad 207 and warayan Rao v. Chunnilal AIR 1953 Nag. 236. But in view of the court's finding on point No. 2, this point does not arise in the present case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Syndicate Bank vs Pundalika Nayak on 16 October, 1986

12. The learned Counsel Shri Tukaram Pai for the revision petitioner Syndicate Bank relied on Subbarao v. Venkataseshacharlu, AIR 1949 Madras 207; Kedarnath v. Sheonaraian, ; Ram Sanesi Lal v. Janki Prasad, AIR 1931 Allahabad 466; and Samarendra Nath Sinha and Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Nag, and contended that though Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act may not strictly apply to Court sales, yet the principle underlying lis pendens would apply to such alienations by the Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Annamalai Mudaliar vs Kuppuswamy Reddiar on 15 December, 1961

5. It seems to me to be very clear that this contention of the plaintiff (appellant)must fail. There can be, no doubt, I think, that the sale in favour of the plaintiff, was affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. The point is amply concluded by authority, and Subba Rao v. Venkataseshacharlu (1948) 2 M.L.J. 128 : A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 207, will itself be sufficient, as it is almost identical upon the situation and the facts. Satyanarayana Rao, J., held that where a property was sold and purchased by a party in execution of his decree during the pendency of a mortgage suit in respect of the same property, and there is also an independent purchase by the mortgagee in Court auction sale, the original decree-holder having purchased the property pendente lite must be regarded as the representative-in-interest of the judgment-debtor, and hence bound by the mortgage decree and further proceedings connected therewith.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1