Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.40 seconds)
Ranganatha Ayyangar vs R. Rajagopala Ayyangar And Ors. on 21 August, 1931 cites

Dayal Singh vs Indar Singh on 24 June, 1926

11. In that case it was held assuming that the document under construction was an agreement for sale and not a conveyance, as the buyer had paid the earnest money and had been pressing for completion which the vendor refused, the document created, under Section 55, Clause 6(b), T.P. Act, "an interest in the property" within the meaning of Section 17, Registration Act, and was accordingly compulsorily registrable. If the right which the buyer has under Section 55, Clause 6(b), T.P. Act, can be described to be an interest in the property, I think the "lien" which the seller under Section 55(4) has, may also be described as an interest in property. If so it must follow that Ex. B-1 containing as it does an assignment of such a right in property worth more than Rs. 100 must be held to be compulsorily registrable under Section 17 Clause 1(b), Registration Act. (The decision in Sambasiva Aiyar v. Venkatarama Aiyar AIR 1926 Mad 903 was prior to the decision of the Privy Council in Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh AIR 1926 PC 94.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

A.G. Sambasiva Aiyar vs Venkatarama Aiyar And Ors. on 20 January, 1926

8. As we have not got to deal with the transfer of legal or equitable mortgage debts, but only with the transfer of a "charge," these decisions do not help us much in deciding the present case. The respondent relies strongly on a decision of Ramesam, J., in Sambasiva Aiyar v. Venkatarama Aiyar AIR 1926 Mad 903 in support of his contention. In that case the facts were as follows as will appear from the head-note:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Perumal Ammal Minor By Mother And Next ... vs Perumal Naicker And Anr. on 5 October, 1920

In Perumal Ammal v. Perumal Naicker AIR 1921 Mad 137 it was held that in consequence of amendments made in 1900 to the Transfer of Property Act, mortgage debts have been excluded from the definition of actionable claims and can only be transferred together with the security as immovable property and therefore only by a registered instrument. The learned Judges observed that this rule is subject to the exceptions one of which is that where the law still admits of the separate transfer of the mortgage debt as by the endorsement of a promissory note secured by deposit of title-deeds or by the attachment and sale in execution of a mortgage debt under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 8 still operates to carry the security with it, meaning thereby that such transfers need not be by a registered instrument.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1   2 Next