Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Basappa Chanbasappa Chekki vs Hanmappa Ramappa Manaur on 22 March, 1939

Rango Ramchandra Kulkarni vs Gurlingappa Chinnappa Muthal on 6 September, 1940

The same view is taken by Beaumont C.J. in Basappa v. Hanmappa , although the observations were in the nature of obiter dicta. The decree of the lower Court cannot, therefore, be justified in any case, but the question would still remain whether defendant No. 1 gets absolute title under the sale or he gets it subject to a charge for the balance of the price payable at the date of the attachment.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Jethalal Nanshah Modi vs Bachu on 17 November, 1944

2. Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that where an attachment has been made, any private transfer of the property attached shall be void against all claims enforceable under the attachment. A large number of rulings were cited at the bar regarding the effect of the attachment of immoveable property on its sale subsequent to the attachment but in pursuance of an agreement of sale entered into before the attachment. Out of those rulings we may refer to the decisions in Basappa v. Hanmappa (1939) 41 Bom.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Yeshvant Shankar Dunakhe vs Pyaraji Nurji Tamboli on 5 August, 1942

1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 against a decree passed in the plaintiff's favour declaring that the suit property was not liable to attachment and sale in the execution proceedings started by defendant No. 1. The facts are shortly these :-Defendant No. 2 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on November 26, 1934. The plaintiff then sued for specific performance of the agreement and obtained a decree, in pursuance of which a sale-deed was executed in his favour through the Court on March 28, 1939, In the meanwhile defendant No. 1, in execution of a decree obtained by him against defendant No. 2, had attached the suit property on September 13, 1936. The question was whether the plaintiff got a good title by virtue of his sale-deed in spite of the property being attached before the sale-deed was passed through Court. The lower appellate Court has held, relying on the decisions in Basappa v. Hanmappa (1939) 41 Bom.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1