Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 40 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Madan Mohan De Sarkar And Ors. vs Rebati Mohan Poddar And Ors. on 12 March, 1916
He discussed a previous decision of the Calcutta High Court in Madan Mohan Dey v. Rebati Mohan Poddar (1915) 21 C.W.N. 158, in which it was held that the attachment was not effective against a sale in pursuance of a contract before attachment, but it was distinguished on the ground that it did not proceed on any principle of law but on natural justice. In the end, however, he did not hold the sale to the plaintiff as invalid but made it subject to a charge for the payment of sums due to the attaching creditors on the property in his hands. But he did so on the ground that as the attachment prevailed over the subsequent sale, the property remained liable for the attaching creditors' claims.
Veerappa Thevar And Ors. vs C.S. Venkatrama Ayyar on 24 April, 1935
It is held in Veerappa Thevar v. Venkatarama Ayyar that where there is an unpaid balance of the purchase-money, the attachment fastens to the vendor's right to recover the money, i.e. the unpaid vendor's lien over the property under Section 55(4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act.
Basappa Chanbasappa Chekki vs Hanmappa Ramappa Manaur on 22 March, 1939
The same view is taken by Beaumont C.J. in Basappa v. Hanmappa , although the observations were in the nature of obiter dicta. The decree of the lower Court cannot, therefore, be justified in any case, but the question would still remain whether defendant No. 1 gets absolute title under the sale or he gets it subject to a charge for the balance of the price payable at the date of the attachment.
Paparaju Veeraraghavayya vs Kilaru Kamala Devi And Ors. on 13 December, 1934
5. It has been held in several cases in Madras, Veeraraghavayya v. Kamala Devi (1934) 68 M.L.J. 67, Veerappa Thevar v. Venkatarama Ayyar (1935) I.L.R. 59 Mad.
Section 91 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Harendra Nath Mukherji And Ors. vs Hari Pada Mukherji And Ors. on 11 April, 1938
The lower Courts have relied on Toraknath Mukherji v. Sanatkumar Mukherji (1929) I.L.R. 57 Cal. 274, which case has sometimes been cited in the text books as an authority for the proposition that an attachment before judgment prevails over the rights arising from a prior contract of sale. But though it is by no means easy to follow the judgments delivered in that case, it is clear when the facts are looked at that the Court did not lay down any such proposition. The suit there had been brought by the purchaser from the judgment-debtor for a declaration that the property was not liable to be sold in execution of the decree against him, and the Court of first appeal had made a decree confirming the plaintiff's title, but directing him to pay certain sums to the defendants which were made a charge on the property. This decree was confirmed in second appeal. It seems probable, although the fact does not very clearly appear from the report of the case, that the direction for payment of certain sums to the defendants and the declaration of a charge effectively safeguarded the rights of the attaching creditor to the balance of the purchase-money. But, in any case, as the purchaser's title was confirmed, there was certainly no finding that the attaching judgment-creditor was entitled to sell the property in satisfaction of his decree.
1