Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Kurri Veerareddi And Ors. vs Kurri Bapireddi And Anr. on 9 March, 1904
1. In this case the plaintiff sues to recover property in possession of defendants 4 and 5. Defendants 1 to 3 first contracted on the 12th July 1911 to sell the property to the defendants 4 and 5, then on the 11th September 1911 sold it by registered sale deed to the plaintiff who had notice of the previous contract and subsequently on the 17th October 1911 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants 4 and 5 and put them in possession, alter which the plaintiff instituted the present suit O.S. 23 of 1912 for possession. The Lower Appellate Court has decided that, as the defendants 4 and 5 have not obtained a registered sale deed they are not entitled to possession citing the Pull Bench decision, in Kurri Veerareddi v. Kurri Bapireddi (1904) I.L.R. 29 M. 330. That however was a suit by the plaintiff to recover possession from the defendant who had not obtained a registered sale deed but only a contract to sell. Here the plaintiff has obtained a transfer by a duly registered document from defendants 1 to 3 with notice of the prior contract by these defendants to sell the property to defts. 4 and 5. In this state of things he is bound by. Section 91 of the Indian Trusts Act to hold the property for the benefit of defendants 4 and 5 to the extent necessary to give effect to the contract.
The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Raja Rajeswara Dorai Alias Muthu ... vs A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachellam Chettiar ... on 3 March, 1913
The various provisions in chapter 9 of the Trusts Act were discussed at length in Raja Rajeswari Dorai v. Arunachallam Chettiar (1913) I.L.R. 38 M. 32 at 337 where also the same principle was laid down, though Sadasiva Iyer, J. was inclined to doubt the correctness of the decision in Lakshmi Doss v. Roop Laul (1906) I.L.R. 30 M. 169. These were however cases where the defendant in possession was the original owner who had conveyed the property to the plaintiff under circumstances which entitled him to rescind, and in which he defended his possession on his original title which did not pass absolutely to the plaintiff. In cases, however, where the.
Section 40 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Gudur Ranga Reddi, Died, And Ors. vs Gundala Pitchi Reddi And Anr. on 2 October, 1914
A similar view was taken in a case in this court, Gudur Ranga Reddi v. Gundala Pitchi Reddi (1914) 1 L.W. 879. In that case specific performance against the vendor and the subsequent transferee with notice, was directed by ordering that the conveyance should be executed by both the vendor and the transferee.
Roop Laul And Ors. vs Lakshmi Doss on 5 September, 1905
5. Questions have arisen as to the position of persons bound by obligations in the nature of trusts under one or other of the sections contained in chapter 9 of the Trusts Act, and in these cases it has been held that a person in possession of the property is entitled to resist a claim for possession on the part of those who are bound by such obligations, by pleading such an obligation, though an action by him as plaintiff to enforce that obligation by calling for a conveyance or by setting aside a conveyance already executed, under some one or other of the provisions of the Specific. Relief Act, may have been barred by limitation. Though there have been observations here and there in this court, see Roop Laul v. Lakshimi Doss (1905) I.L.R. 29 M. 1 at p. 12 per Subramania Aiyar, J.; Raja Rajeswari Dorai v. Arunachallam Chettiar (1913) I.L.R. 38 M. 32 at 337 per Sadasiva Aiyar, J. that a. defendant in possession who had not taken steps to set aside a conveyance or to call for a conveyance within the time limited by law is not entitled to resist a suit for possession by the legal owner, it may be taken as settled so far as this Court is concerned by the decision of a Full Bench in Lakshmi Doss v. Roop Laul (1906) I.L.R. 30 M. 169, that persons in possession, who have parted with their ownership by a legal conveyance which they are at liberty to repudiate, can by virtue of the possession plead the invalidity of the plaintiff's title as against them and prevent the plaintiffs from recovering possession on a defeasible title.
Khagendra Nath Chatterjee And Ors. vs Sonatan Guha And Ors. on 19 August, 1915
The same view was taken in Puchha Lal v. Kunj Behari (1913) 19 C.L.J. 213, which has been followed in a still more recent case in Calcutta, Khagendra Nath Chatterjee v. Sonatan Guha (1915) 20 C.W.N. 149. Whether even the original vendor can recover possession, if he had delivered possession in pursuance of an express stipulation in the contract of sale, it is unnecessary to consider.
Kolathu Aiyar vs Ranga Vadhyar And Anr. on 12 December, 1912
In Kolathu Aiyar v. Ranga Vadhyar (1913) 234 M.L.J. 84 at 87, the learned Judges seem to think that such a transferee can recover possession.