Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.88 seconds)Section 16 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi And ... vs Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (D) By ... on 22 January, 2002
18. It is relevant to point out that the Honourable Supreme Court in 2002-3-SCC-676 [Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi Vs. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (dead) by LRs and others] while holding that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act does not put any restriction to a plea taken in defence by a transferee to protect his possession under Section 53A of the Act even if the period of limitation to bring a suit for specific performance has expired, however, enumerated certain conditions which are required to be fulfilled if a transferee wants to defend or protect his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The necessary conditions are:-
Sardar Govindrao Mahadik & Anr vs Devi Sahai & Ors on 15 December, 1981
23. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and another Vs. Devi Sahai and others [AIR-1992-SC-989] has held thus:-
Ranchhoddas Chhaganlal vs Devaji Supadu Dorik And Ors on 17 January, 1977
28. The Honourable Supreme Court has reiterated in the decision reported in 1977-3-SCC-584 [Ranchhoddas Chhaganlal Vs. Devaji Supdu Dorik and others] that Section 53A requires a positive act of readiness and willingness on the part of a transferee to perform the agreement.
A. Lewis & Anr. Etc vs M.T. Ramamurthy & Ors on 31 October, 2007
In an another decision, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of A.Lewis and another Vs. M.T.Ramamurthy and others [2007-14-SCC-87] observed that the existence of right to claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be available, if the transferee just kept quiet and remained passive without taking effective steps.
Motilal Jain vs Smt.Ramdasi Devi & Ors on 20 July, 2000
(i) Motilal Jain Vs. Ramdasi Devi and others [2000-6-SCC-420],
P.S. Sugumaran vs Ragini Alias Usha And Anr. on 28 June, 2001
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of this court reported in 2001-3-MLJ-257 [P.S.Sugumaran Vs. Ragini @ Usha and another] in support of his contention that notwithstanding the fact that a transferee in possession pursuant to a contract of sale fails to file a suit for specific performance within the prescribed period of limitation, still in law the contract remains valid and operative enabling him to exert his right to retain the possession over the property in exercise of his statutory right conferred by Section 53A of the Act by way of defence in a suit brought against him for recovery of possession.
Parvathi Ammal vs M. Kuppuswamy And Anr. on 15 April, 1999
(v) Parvathi Ammal Vs. M.Kuppuswamy and another [1999-3-MLJ-633].