Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.57 seconds)Sundara Ramanujam Naidu vs Sivalingam Pillai And Anr. on 19 April, 1923
14. The impleading of a third party, relied
on by learned Counsel for the respondents as distinguishing the decision in -- 'Sundara Ramanujam v. Sivalingam Pillai', 47 Mad 150. makes no difference. Section 27, Clause (b), Specific Relief Act, 1877, makes it clear that a suit for specific performance lies against a third party. In fact, where the property in suit has, subsequently to the contract, been transferred to a stranger, the transferee is a neces-.sary party to a suit for specific performance of the contract for, before it can grant the relief sought, the Court has to investigate whether the transferee is a 'bona fide' purchaser for value without notice.
Section 27 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
The Court-fees Act, 1870
Section 8 in The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Arjun Singh vs Sahu Maharaj Narain on 10 January, 1950
-- 'Arjun Singh v. Sahu Maharaj Narain', AIR 1950 All 415, but it is not necessary for us to decide this question in the present suit.
Section 27 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 19 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Krishna Aiyar And Ors. vs Shamanna, Minor Legal Representative ... on 4 October, 1912
sation, but the clauses just referred to laying
a duty on the Court to grant compensation are
not made dependent on such a request and the
Court can grant compensation without such a
request. -- 'Krishna Aiyar v. Shamanna', 23
Mad LJ 610; -- 'Callianji Harjivan v. Narsi
Tricum', 19 Bom 764. Therefore, the inclusion
in the plaint of a prayer for compensation does
not alter the nature of the suit, and court-fee
is payable thereon as on a plaint for specific
performance.