Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)Section 55 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Arunachala Aiyar And Ors. vs T. Ramasami Aiyar And Ors. on 9 September, 1914
12. Under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act" in the absence of a contract to the contrary the seller shall be deemed to contract with the buyer that"...(the seller) "has power to transfer the interests which" he "professes to transfer to the buyer." I am unable to hold that the fact that the buyer had notice of facts which indicated that the seller had not the power which he professed to be able to transfer implies " a contract to the contrary." Napier, J. and myself in Arunachella Aiyar v. Ramasami Aiyar (1914) 27 M.L.J. 517 held that the covenant in Section 55, Clause (2) is not excluded by the mere fact that the vendee was aware of the defect in the title.
Krishna Aiyar And Ors. vs Shamanna, Minor Legal Representative ... on 4 October, 1912
458, and Krishna Aiyar v. Shamanna (1912) 23 M.L.J. 610.
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Nabinchandra Saha Paramanick vs Krishna Barana Dasi on 9 February, 1911
165, Nabin Chandra Saha Paramanick v. Krishna Barana Dasi (1911) I.L.R. 38 Cal.
Subbaroya Reddiar vs Rajagopala Reddiar And Two Ors. on 24 February, 1914
16. It has been negatived by a Bench of this Court in Arunachala Aiyar v. Ramasami Aiyar (1914) 27 M.L.J. 517,in which case the Judges follow the decision of a single Judge in Subbaraya Reddiar v. Rajagopala Reddiar (1914) I.L.R. 38 Mad.
Thekkamannengath Raman Alias Kochu ... vs Kakkasseri Pazhiyot Manakkal Karnavan ... on 8 January, 1915
887, holding that the question of the knowledge of the purchaser does not affect the right to be indemnified under the Indian Statute Law, and in Thekkumannengath Raman alias Kochu Poduval v. Kakkasseri Pazhiyot Manakkal Karnavan (1915) 28 M.L.J. 184, another Bench of this Court held that the question of the knowledge of a mortgagee as to the defect of title in the mortgagor is irrelevant on the same principle.
Ranchhod Bhawan vs Manmohandas Ramji on 26 August, 1907
This exception however has not been recognised in India-vide Ranchhod v. Manmohandas (1907) I.L.R. 32 Bom.