Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Radha Kant Jha vs Ramanup Singh And Ors. on 9 September, 1949 cites

Musammat Bhawani Kumar vs Mathura Prasad Singh on 22 July, 1912

293) are of doubtful authority in view of the decision of the Judicial Committee in Bhawani Kumar v. Mathura Prasad Singh, 40 Cal. 89 : (16 I. C. 210). In that case a mortgage had been granted on 9th August, 1886, in favour of the respondent over a certain share in four out of 71 villages. On 3lst May he obtained a decree on his mortgage which was made absolute on 19th December, 1899. He executed his decree and a sale took place on 19th March 1900, at which the respondent himself became the purchaser. On 28th March, an instalment of Government revenue on the 71 villages fell into arrear and the whole residuary share of 71 villages, including the 4 villages purchased by the respondent, was notified for sale. The respondent did not pay the revenue due, but on 23rd April he obtained a certificate confirming the sale of 19th March in execution of his decree. On 6th June 1900, the whole of the villages was sold for arrears of revenue and was purchased by the predecessor in title of the appellant, and the appellant instituted a suit against the respondent for the share purchased at the execution sale. Upon these facts the Judicial Committee reversed the decision of the High Court and held that the sale in execution of the mortgage decree took effect from the actual date of the sale, and not from its confirmation, and, therefore, from 19th March 1900 the respondent by his purchase became the proprietor of the estate sold, and not merely the purchaser of such right, title and interest in it as the mortgagor might have had.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Kalyanasundaram Pillai vs Karuppa Mooppanar on 13 December, 1926

In Kalyanasundaram Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar, 8 P. L. T. 327 : (A. I. R. (14) 1927 P. C. 42) a Hindu male had executed a deed of gift in respect of part of immovable property and delivered it to the donee; a day after he adopted a son, and five days later the deed of gift was registered. The question arose as to whether the deed of gift took effect from the date of execution or from the date of registration. The Judicial Committee affirmatively laid down that the deed became effective from the date when it was executed and the gift accepted by the donee. Lord Salvesen remarked in the course of his judgment:
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 46 - Full Document
1