Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.44 seconds)Section 66 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 88 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 82 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
K.M. Ramakrishna Mudaliar vs V.S.V. Manikka Mudaliar (Deceased) And ... on 25 September, 1936
(29) Sri Krishna Rao next relied upon venkatappa v. Jalayya, ILR 42 Mad 615: (AIR 1919 Mad 94) (FB) and vadivelu Mudaliar v. Manicka Mudaliar, ILR 43 Mad 643: (AIR 1920 PC 30). But these cases have no parallel because the suits were filed for specific performance of agreements for conveyance of the property and they are not cases in which the certified purchase is attacked as being benami for the real owner. In fact, the distinction between the two cases is pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in ILR 43 Mad 643: (AIR 1920 PC 30) in these words:
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Sankunni Nayar And Raman Nambiar vs Narayanan Nambudri And Anr. on 11 October, 1893
(5) This was heard by Bhimasankaram, J. who dismissed the appeal accepting the contention of the respondent that Sec. 66, C. P. C. did not stand in the way of the plaintiff's suit. He was of the opinion that the instant case was governed by the rulings of the Madras High Court reported in Sankunni Nayar v. Varaayanan Nambudri, ILR 17 Mad 282 and Patrachariar v. Ramaswami Chettiar, 9 Mad LW 276: (AIR 1919 Mad 942) which, under similar circumstances decided that the suit was not opposed to Sec. 66, C. P. C. However, the learned Judge granted leave under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. When the appeal came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court, it was referred to a Full Bench, as it was represented by counsel on either side that there was a conflict between the rulings relied on by Bhimasankaram, J. and some Bench decisions of the Madras High Court and other Courts.