Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.15 seconds)
Baisnab Das Sen vs Bholanath Sen And Anr. on 14 June, 1984 cites

Zila Singh & Ors vs Hazari & Ors on 25 February, 1979

The learned advocate for the respondent 2 has also relied on the decision in the case of Zila Singh v. Hazari, . In that case one N filed a preemption suit against the original vendor of certain lands and his vendees. The trial Court decreed the suit on condition to deposit certain amounts, with which N complied. Soon thereafter N sold the lands to the appellants. The Supreme Court held that if N could have made an application for execution of the decree as decree holder, the appellants as purchasers of land from N would be claiming under N and therefore their application for execution would be maintainable under Section 146 of the Code.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 18 - D A Desai - Full Document

Sardar Govindrao Mahadik & Anr vs Devi Sahai & Ors on 15 December, 1981

Order 22 Rule 10 applies only where a subsisting interest is assigned, created or devolved (see Sardar Goviodrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai ). In the present case there was no assignment, creation or devolution of interest in the property during the pendency of the suit as required by Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code nor has the decree been assigned as mentioned Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code. Moreover, in India there is no such thing as equitable ownership and when property is vested in a trustee, the owner is the trustee. The beneficiary can only have rights against the trustee which are laid down by the Indian Trust Act. Section 3 of the said Act expressly says. -- "the beneficial interest or interest of the beneficiary is his right against the trustee as the owner of the trust property". The right of the beneficiary is the right to call upon the trust to administer the property so as to give the beneficiary his dues according to the provisions of the trust under Section 55 of the Act or in a proper case to convey the property to the beneficiary under Section 56 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 147 - D A Desai - Full Document

Indrajit Choubey And Anr. vs Sitaram Agarwalla And Ors. on 23 December, 1969

In this connection reliance has been placed on the Bench decision in Indrajit Choubey v. Sitaram Agarwalla . But in that case the claimants who got the decree holder's interest under a partition were allowed to continue the execution proceedings started by the decree-holder on substitution in place of the decree-holder under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code as there was devolution of interest during the pendency of the execution proceedings to which the provisions of Section 146 of the Code were held to be applicable.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1