Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.33 seconds)The Specific Relief Act, 1963
The Registration Act, 1908
Ellammal vs Rangaswamy Koundar And Ors. on 27 August, 1981
This view was reiterated by the
Madras High Court in Ellammal v. Rangaswamy Koundar & Ors.,
95 L.W. 546.
Mathai Ouseph Panackal vs Joseph And Anr. on 21 August, 1969
It may be noticed that in Mathai v. Joseph,
AIR 1970 Ker.
Anchuru Veerapa Naidu vs Gurijala Venkaiah Chowdari on 23 December, 1960
261, the Kerala High Court agreed with the
view expressed in Veerappa Naidu v. Venkaiah, AIR 1961 A.P.
534, to hold that a person seeking relief other than bare
registration can approach the court by filing a suit and his
right to file a suit in civil court is not fettered by
Section 77 of the Act. The view taken is that Section 77 of
the Act is only a facility available to the aggrieved party
and not a fetter on the courts power and whether the
plaintiff has already set in motion the machinery for
enforcing registration or not is immaterial and cannot
inhibit a suit de hors Section 77 of the Act. Now the
pendulum appears to have swung from one extreme to another
towards the view that a suit for specific performance by way
of registration of a document is maintainable
notwithstanding the alternative remedy provided under
Section 77 of the Act. We may advert to Section 77 of the
Act. Several steps have to be taken before a suit under
Section 77 of the Act could be filed and they are : a)
document has to be presented for registration within the
time prescribed by Sections 23-26 of the Act;
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Manicka Goundan vs Elumalai Goundan Minor By Guardian ... on 16 August, 1956
Another line of authority is the decision of the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Manicka Gounder
v. Elumalai Gounder, 1956-2-M.L.J. 536, observed as
follows :