Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)The Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Aravamudhu Ayyangar vs Zamindarini Srimath Abiramavalli Ayah ... on 29 November, 1933
824), and Aravamudu Ayyangar v. Abhiramvalli Ayah, 66 M. L. J. 566 : (A. I. R. (21) 1934 Mad. 353). But there is a clear distinction between the charge as declared in Schedule 4, Orissa Tenancy Act and the charge within the meaning of Schedule 00. According to the latter sections a charge is one either created by act of parties or by operation of law. The section provides;
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Banku Behary Chatterji vs Naraindas Dutt on 22 February, 1927
One of these provisions is that a holder of a charge is not entitled to enforce it even though personal liability may be involved in it, against any property of the charge maker before exhausting his remedies against the charge property, This is the rule which applies to the available remedies of a mortgagee. That it is so will appear from the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case Banku Behari v. Naraindas Dutt, 54 I. A. 129: (A.I.R. (14) 1927 P. C. 73). In this connexion, reference may be made to Order 34, Rule 15, Civil P. C. But unlike charge-holder under ordinary law, the landlord of a tenancy is not confined to first exhausting his remedies against a holding and then only to proceed against the judgment-debtor's other properties. He can exhaust his other remedies on the other hand before he considers it necessary to fall back upon the holding as a security for repayment of the decretal debt in a rent suit. Under the circumstances, all the incidental rights and liabilities are not attracted to a charge under Schedule 4, Orissa Tenancy Act. It is difficult, therefore, to hold that the execution proceeding is a proceeding within the purview of Section 52, T. P. Act, in which any right to immovable properties is in dispute between the parties until a valid attachment is effected. Besides, any transfer by one party during Us which is otherwise binding on the other party of the suit or proceeding, cannot be hit by the mischief of the section. Suppose, both the parties agree in making a transfer, the transfer must stand unaffected by the result of the suit or proceeding. So is a transfer by an occupancy tenant to which his landlord's consent is implicit by virtue of the statute as soon as its conditions for giving notice to him are fulfilled. In my view, therefore, the doctrine of lis pendens does not help the appellant: the only result is that the holding has not passed to the auction-purchaser, namely, the appellant, and in fact, he has purchased the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor who had lost all rights in the holding by virtue of his transfer in favour of the plaintiff.
Section 9 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Smt. Binapani Devi W/O Babu Behari Lal ... vs Banku Behary Mondal And Ors. on 16 April, 1943
Similarly, it has been held-in the case of Smt. Binapani Debi v. Banku Behari Mandal, A. I. R. (30) 1943 Cal. 475 : (209 I. C. 237) that if the tenant loses the interest before execution of the rent decree, the execution sale will not be competent so as to convey the holding to the purchaser. Mr. Pal, therefore, contends that the case will be different if the holding is dealt with by way of transfer during the pendency of the execution proceedings, when according to him it becomes a proceeding in which 'any right to immovable properties directly and specifically in question.' This leads us to consider whether the charge declared in Schedule 4 is a charge within the meaning of Schedule 00 so as to attract all the provisions of the Act in respect thereto. If the matter was res integra, I could hold otherwise, but it is covered by abundance of authorties that a suit for enforcement of a charge is a suit relating to immovable property for the purpose of Schedule 2, T. P. Act.