Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.77 seconds)Section 55 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
S.S. Rajabathar vs N.A. Sayeed on 28 September, 1973
In S.S. Rajabathar v. N.A. Sayeed, the decree was silent so far as direction to deliver possession of the property. Then the question arose was whether Executing Court can direct delivery of possession in such situation. It was held that delivery of possession being incidental to the execution of the conveyance in favour of the decree-holder, such direction for delivery of possession can be given by the decree-holder.
Meenakshi Amma vs Kizhakke Valath Narayani And Ors. on 9 March, 1956
"As far as the leasehold interest held by the defendant at the time of mortgage is concerned, that came to be merged on the defendant becoming a possessory mortgagee for two reasons: (a) the recitals contained in the mortgage deed are clearly to the effect that the tenancy is surrendered; (b) the lessee's interest is inferior to that of usufructuary mortgagee, therefore on the lessee becoming a mortgagee in possession, his interest as lessee merges in the superior interest of the possessory mortgagee. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, there will be an implied surrender of the leasehold right. Consequently, the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end as soon as the relationship of the usufructuary mortgagor and usufructuary mortgagee conies into existence. (See Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act.) In the deed of mortgagee in question, the recitals do not suspend the relationship of landlord and tenant during the subsistence of mortgage and provide for revival of the same after the redemption of the mortgage. On the contrary, as per the terms of the mortgage deed, tenancy rights are surrendered. Therefore, the lease does not subsist. (See Reoti Savan v. Hargulal, , Meenakshi Amma v. Kizhakke Valath Narayani and Ors., , Velu v. Lakshmi and Ors., AIR 1953 TC 584, and Ramrao Gouindrao Akolkar v. Pahumal Peshuram Sindhi, .)"
Ramesh Kumar Jhamb And Another vs Official Assignee, High Court, Bombay ... on 4 March, 1993
In Ramesh Kumar Jhamb v. Official Assignee, High Court, Bombay , at para 6 it is held as under:
Lala Durga Prasad And Another vs Lala Deep Chand And Others on 18 November, 1953
In Durga Prasad and Anr. v. Deep Chand. and Ors., at head-note '(c)' it is held as under:
Kafiladdin And Ors. vs Samiraddin And Ors. on 24 February, 1930
''Where there is a sale of the same property in favour of a prior and subsequent transferee and the subsequent transferee has, under the conveyance outstanding in his favour, paid the purchase money to the vendor, then in a suit for specific performance brought by the prior transferee, in case he succeeds, the question arises as to the proper form of decree in such a case. The practice of the Courts in India has not been uniform and three distinct lines of thought emerge. According to one point of view, the proper form of decree is to declare the subsequent purchase void as against the prior transferee and direct conveyance by the vendor alone. A second considers that both vendor and vendee should jinn, while a third would limit execution of the conveyance to the subsequent purchaser alone. According to the Supreme Court, the proper form of decree is to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the prior transferee and direct
the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title which resides in him to the prior transferee. He does not join in any special covenants made between the prior transferee and his vendor; all he does is to pass on his title to the prior transferee. Kafiladdin and Ors. v. Samiraddin and Ors., AIR 1931 Cal. 67 appr.
M. P. Shreevastava vs Mrs. Veena on 24 August, 1966
13. The respondents' Counsel relied upon a decision in M.P. Shreevastava v. Mrs. Veena, wherein the Apex Court held in this case that there is no antithesis between Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 2 of the CPC. Section 47 deals with the power of the Court and Order 21, Rule 2 deals with the procedure to be followed in respect of limited clause of cases relating to discharge or satisfaction of the decree where the question of adjustment or satisfaction of the decree is raised. Section 47 confers power on the Court executing the decree which can look into the same. A separate suit inquiring into said discharge or satisfaction of the decree cannot be filed. In other words the Executing Court has ample powers to make an inquiry and determine all the questions arising between the parties to the decree regarding discharge or satisfaction of the decree.