Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.37 seconds)Section 104 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Muthuvaien Represented By His Agent, ... vs Periasami Iyen And Ors. on 11 September, 1903
28. Having considered the provisions of Section 588 of the old Code on the one hand, and Section 104 and Order 43 of the present Code on the other, I do not think that there is any sufficient ground for holding that the decision in Muthuvaien v. Periasami Iyen (1903) 13 M.L.J. 497 should not govern judgments passed under the present Code of Civil Procedure, by a learned Judge of this Court in an appeal preferred under Order 43, Civil Procedure Code. I have no hesitation in overruling the preliminary objection. The matter has been fully discussed in the decisions already cited, and I do not propose to say anything more on the point.
Arunachellam Chettiar vs Manicka Varaher Desikar And Ors. on 27 August, 1909
See Arunachellam Chettiar v. Manicka Varaher Desikar (1909) 6 M.L.T. 238, Ghanashyam Misser v. Gobinda Moni Dasi (1902) 7 Cal.
H.L. Weatherall vs The Eastern Mortgage And Agency Co. Ltd. on 23 February, 1911
W.N. 452, Weatherall v. Eastern Mortgage Agency Co. (1911) 13 Cal.
Chakkara Chappan vs Moidin Kutti on 28 October, 1898
27. The question whether an appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court passed on an appeal preferred to the High Court under Order 43, Civil Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 588 of the earlier Code), has been the subject of discussion in some cases in this Court. The decision of Boddam and Bhashyam Aiyangar, JJ., in Muthuvaien v. Periasami Iyen (1903) 13 M.L.J. 497, is directly against the contention raised by the respondent before us. The learned Judges, after noticing the reasoning of the Full Bench of this High Court, in the case reported in Chappan v. Moidin Kutti (1898) I.L.R. 22 Mad.
Immidisetti Dhanaraju And Ors. vs Motilal Daga, Trading Under The Name And ... on 19 February, 1929
See also the decision of the Full Bench in Dhanaraju v. Sait Balakissendas Motilal (1929) I.L.R. 52 Mad. 563 : 57 M.L.J. 264 (F.B.) where it was held that the procedure to be adopted by the High Court in the case of an equal division of opinion among the Judges of the High Court in an appeal preferred to it under the Code of Civil Procedure is governed by the Letters Patent and not by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Sri Rajah Rao Venkatakumara Mahipathi ... vs Gokuldoss Goverdhanadoss And Ors. on 3 March, 1931
In Maharajah of Pittapuram v. Gokuldoss Goverdhandoss (1931) I.L.R. 54 Mad.