Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Kanji Manji vs The Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 February, 1962
"The observation in Kanji v. Trustees, Port of Bombay (AIR 1963 SC 468) (in para 7 of the report) that notice to one alone of several joint tenants is sufficient applies only to a case where the several tenants hold as joint tenants and not where, as in this case, they hold as tenants in common. That is clear from the emphasis placed by their Lordships on the circumstance that the tenants took the premises as joint tenants, the deed of assignment by which they acquired the lease expressly providing that they were taking as joint tenants. Where joint owners are joint tenants there is unity of title, unity of interest and the right of survivorship in addition to unity of possession so that it might be said that any one of the joint tenants represents t he entire estate-indeed in the Supreme Court case already referred to it would appear that one of the two joint tenants had died and the lease had vested solely in the other by survivorship before notice to quit was served on the other so that there was no question of the legal representatives of the deceased joint tenant having any interest whatsoever in the lease so as to require that notice should go to them. Where, however, the joint owners are only tenants in common there is only unity of possession, not of title or interest, and to determine a tenancy so held in accordance with Section 106 of the T. P. Act notice must be addressed to all the tenants though proof of service in one will be prima facie proof of service on all."
Section 77 in Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Valiyaveettil Konnappan vs Mangot Velia Kunniyil Manikkam And Ors. on 23 May, 1967
4. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by Vadakkel J. that the statutory notice under the proviso is akin to a suit notice in which case even in the absence of a notice an application under Section 77(1) will be maintainable. The statutory provisions in Section 77(1) of the Act and the first proviso thereto make it clear that no application for shifting of a kudikidappu is maintainable unless the statutory requirement of a notice under the proviso is complied with. We are also in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Raman Nayar J., as he then "was, in Konnappan's case (AIR 1968 Ker 229) (supra) that a notice to one co-tenant is not a notice to other co-tenants in cases where the property is held in tenancy in common.
Section 75 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 78 in Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Cheekutty vs The Land Tribunal Alangad And Ors. on 12 February, 1973
Viswanatha Iyer J. in Cheekutty v. Land Tribunal (1973 Ker 352) : (AIR 1974 Ker 1) has stressed the need of a notice under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 77 before an application for shifting the kudikidappu is made on the ground available under Sub-section (2) of Section 75 of the Act.
1