Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Soni Lalji Jetha & Ors vs Soni Kalidas Devchand & Ors on 14 October, 1966 cites

Subbaya Pandaram vs Muhammad Mustappa Maracayar on 26 June, 1923

In Subbaiya Pandaram v. Mohamad Mustapha Maracayar(1) a suit was brought by the appellant in 1913 against the respondents for possession of immovable property which had been dedicated to the endowment of a chattaram by deeds of trust executed in 1890 by the appellant's grandfather. In 1898 the first respondent purchased part of the property at a sale in execution of a decree against the appellant's father and the purchaser and the other respondents who claimed under him had since been in possession. In 1904, in a suit to which the first respondent had been joined as a party at his own request, a decree was passed declaring the validity of the said trust but no steps had been taken in consequence of that decree prior to the instant suit. The Privy Council observed that though the real argument in favour of the appellant was that in the presence of the purchaser it was declared that the said trust was valid and that the said property was trust property the contention that the said declaration operated as res judicata against the respondents and prevented them from asserting that the property was theirs was not tenable:
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Lala Durga Prasad And Another vs Lala Deep Chand And Others on 18 November, 1953

In Lala Durga Prasad & Anr., v. Lala Deep Chand & Ors.(1)- this Court after considering these provisions observed that in spite of the existence of a previous contract of sale, a sale to a subsequent purchaser even with notice is not void but voidable at the instance of the party agreeing to purchase under a previous contract and except for the obligation arising from section 91 of the Trusts Act and paragraph 2 of section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act the title to the property would pass from the vendor to the subsequent transferee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 205 - V Bose - Full Document

Marina Appa Rao And Ors. vs Marina Veeranna on 27 November, 1951

(See also Appa Rao v. Veeranna).(2) It is thus clear that though the sale dated September 10, 1930 in favour of Kanji and Lalji was not void but voidable at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 by reason of their earlier contract and though as between the mortgagors and Kanji and Lalji the sale was valid and binding it was subject to the right of specific performance which respondents 1 and 2 had acquired and Kanji and Lalji being in a fiduciary position, their possession was not adverse as against respondents 1 and 2. Therefore their suit for redemption cannot be said to be barred even though the statutory period had expired. We thus arrive at the same result which the High Court reached though on different reasons.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Madhavarapu Sathiraju And Ors. vs Madhavarapu Venkanna And Ors. on 19 October, 1934

In Sathiraju v. Venkanna(1) the High Court of Madras similarly observed that as a result of s. 91 of the Trusts Act the natural result of a person purchasing a property with notice of a prior contract in another person's favour is that the purchaser holds the property for the benefit of the latter to the extent necessary to give effect to the contract. But for all other purposes and as between the purchaser and the vendor, the purchaser is the owner and that is the reason why in such circumstances the decree in a suit for specific performance must direct the purchaser to join in execution of the conveyance.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1