Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)Section 40 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Marina Appa Rao And Ors. vs Marina Veeranna on 27 November, 1951
(See also Appa Rao v.
Veeranna).(2)
It is thus clear that though the sale dated September 10,
1930 in favour of Kanji and Lalji was not void but voidable
at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 by reason of their
earlier contract and though as between the mortgagors and
Kanji and Lalji the sale was valid and binding it was
subject to the right of specific performance which
respondents 1 and 2 had acquired and Kanji and Lalji being
in a fiduciary position, their possession was not adverse as
against respondents 1 and 2. Therefore their suit for
redemption cannot be said to be barred even though the
statutory period had expired. We thus arrive at the same
result which the High Court reached though on different
reasons.
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Section 3 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Subbaya Pandaram vs Muhammad Mustappa Maracayar on 26 June, 1923
In Subbaiya Pandaram v. Mohamad
Mustapha Maracayar(1) a suit was brought by the appellant in
1913 against the respondents for possession of immovable
property which had been dedicated to the endowment of a
chattaram by deeds of trust executed in 1890 by the
appellant's grandfather. In 1898 the first respondent
purchased part of the property at a sale in execution of a
decree against the appellant's father and the purchaser and
the other respondents who claimed under him had since been
in possession. In 1904, in a suit to which the first
respondent had been joined as a party at his own request, a
decree was passed declaring the validity of the said trust
but no steps had been taken in consequence of that decree
prior to the instant suit. The Privy Council observed that
though the real argument in favour of the appellant was that
in the presence of the purchaser it was declared that the
said trust was valid and that the said property was trust
property the contention that the said declaration operated
as res judicata against the respondents and prevented them
from asserting that the property was theirs was not tenable:
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956
Lala Durga Prasad And Another vs Lala Deep Chand And Others on 18 November, 1953
In Lala Durga Prasad & Anr., v. Lala Deep Chand & Ors.(1)-
this Court after considering these provisions observed that
in spite of the existence of a previous contract of sale, a
sale to a subsequent purchaser even with notice is not void
but voidable at the instance of the party agreeing to
purchase under a previous contract and except for the
obligation arising from section 91 of the Trusts Act and
paragraph 2 of section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act
the title to the property would pass from the vendor to the
subsequent transferee.