Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)Section 69 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Ahamed Kutti vs Raman Nambudri on 4 October, 1901
7. These are the points taken in respect of the claim of the plaintiff as the lawful trustee of the charity in succession to Arunachela his father who had been removed from the trusteeship in 1913. Article 134 of the Limitation Act, has been held by this Court to be inapplicable to a purchaser in court auction Ahmed Kutti v. Raman Nambudri (1901) I.L.R. 25 Mad. 99. We have held that Section 10 does not apply. The only other articles applicable are Article 142 or 144. Whichever article applies, the 1st defendant having been in possession without any title whatsoever (for the case of the plaintiff is that the execution sale was absolutely void and conveyed no title whatever to the 1st defendant) the title of the trustee Arunachela and of the charity which he represented was extinguished.
Mahant Damodar Das vs Adhikari Lakhan Das on 7 June, 1910
Damodar Das v. Lakhan Das (1910) I.L.R. 37 C. p. 885. The plaintiff as a successor has no fresh cause of action. The plaintiff's suit then as the successor of Arunachela in the trusteeship fails and must be dismissed.
Sundar vs Parbati on 12 June, 1885
In fact the prior possession is itself a root of title and the prior possessor has all the rights of a true owner except of course against the owner himself, see Asher v. Whitelock (1865) L.R. 1 Q.B. p. 1 where Doe v. Barnard (1849) 13 Q.B. p. 945 is explained; Perry v. Clissord (1907) A.C. 73, Sundar v. Parbati (1889) I.L.R. 12 All.
Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur vs Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi, Bhaba Prasad ... on 28 June, 1911
The charity is barred and can be barred only when its trustee or the manager is barred, as the charity can sue only through a natural person see Jagadindranath Roy v. Hemanta Kumari Debi (1904) I.L.R. 32 Cal. P. 129 (P.C.). Mr. Rangachariar did not contend that as the 1st defendant obtained possession claiming under a sale in execution of a decree against the then trustee, (which sale must on the allegations in the plaint be taken to be a nullity) that the 1st defendant could have resisted any suit for possession by the plaintiff by virtue of his prior possession.