Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Ram Saroop vs Dalpat Rai And Ors. on 15 June, 1920 cites

Dorab Ally Khan vs Abdool Azeez on 10 September, 1880

He has tried to distinguish the case in Dorab Ali Khan v. Abdool Azeez 5 I.A. 116 at p. 124 : 2 C.L.R. 529 : 3 Suth. P.C.J. 519 : 3 Sar. P.C.J. 818 : 3 C. 808 : 8 Ind. Jur. 426 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1097 on the ground that, although their Lirdships in one part of the judgment held that there was no warranty of title in auction sales, and, therefore, an auction purchaser had no right to a refund of the purchase-money, still, further on, about the close of the judgment, they remand the case for trial on the merits. But, we must bear in mind, that, the circumstances of that case were somewhat peculiar. The sale of certain property outside his jurisdiction was made by the Sheriff. There was a further question if the auction-purchaser-knew that the Sheriff was acting ultra rivet in selling property beyond the local limits of his own jurisdiction, and, thirdly, there was a question as to the amount realised and appropriated by the auction purchaser which might have to be set-off against the purchase-money, in case the Court came to the conclusion that he was entitled to the fatter. Their Lordships of the Privy Council considered, first of all, the position of sales at auction conducted by the Sheriff who had jurisdiction to sell the property, and came to the conclusion that, if that had been the case, there would have been no question that the auction-purchaser had (sic) right to a refund of the purchase-money, but they went on to held that, as the Sheriff had acted beyond his jurisdiction, therefore, the following considerations might prevail. First, whether the auction-purchaser purchased the property with full knowledge that he was purchasing something which the Sheriff had no right to sell. If this fact was, found against the auction-purchaser, perhaps, the suit might fail, but. none-the-less, it was a fact which was to be found one way or the other, and in case it turned out that the auction-purchaser had no intimation of the defeat in the proceedings taken by the Sheriff, the further question that might arise would be as to the amount which he would be entitled to get the refund of; and it was only for the consideration of these latter points that the case was sent back to the High Court, so that these last observations did in no way detract from the meaning of the previous pronouncement.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Nannu Lal And Ors. vs Bhagwan Das on 13 July, 1916

In Nannu Lai v. Bhagwan Das 87 Ind. Cas. 9, 39 A. 114 : 14 A.L.J. 1216 the point raised in this appeal was clearly decided against the appellant. That case is on all fours with the present case and I am in perfect accord with the reasoning of the learned Chief Justice who delivered the judgment in that case. The provisions of Act V of 1908 do not recognise the right of an auction purchaser to maintain a suit for the recovery of the purchase money or to get the sale set aside. His right is limited to an application for an order for re-payment of the purchase money after the sale has been set aside. In my opinion, therefore, the finding of the learned District Judge that the suit was not maintainable is correct.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Dorab Ally Khan vs The Executors Of Khajah Moheeoodeen on 13 April, 1878

The High Court of Calcutta vide Dorab Ally Khan v. Khajah Moheeooddeen 1 C. 55 : 24 W.B. 372 : 1. Ind. Dec. (N.S) 35 had assumed that if the defendant was to be treated as a principal in the trans-action the case was governed by the ordinary rules relating to vendors and purchasers upon voluntary sales, and had applied the rule that a purchaser, who, after the execution of the conveyance, is evicted by a title to which the covenants in the conveyance do not extend, cannot recover the purchase-money from his vendors. Their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the rule, which governed sales by private contracts, was not properly applicable to sales by the Sheriff. At the same time, on page 126, their Lordships remarked, "Now it is, of course, perfectly clear that when the property has been so sold under a regular execution, and the purchaser is afterwards evicted under a title paramount to that of the judgment-debtor, he has no remedy against either the Sheriff or the judgment-creditor. This, however, is because the Sheriff is authorised by the writ to seizs the property of the execution-debtor which lies within his territorial jurisdiction and to pass the debtor's title to it without warranting that title to be good. The Sheriff, how-ever, if he acts ultra vires cannot invoke the protection which the law gives to him when acting within his jurisdiction." That the decision of that case turned on the absence of jurisdiction in the Sheriff to sell the property is further borne out. by the remarks on page 127 that, "Their Lordships think that, upon a similar principle, the Sheriff may be held to undertake by his conduct that he has seized and put up for sale the property sold in the exercise of his jurisdiction, although when he has jurisdiction he does not in anyway warrant that the judgment-debtor had a good title to it, or guarantee that the purchaser shall not be turned Out of possession by some person other than the judgment-debtor. In the present case, the subject-matter of the sale was the estate of the execution-debtor, so that, if the Sheriff had had jurisdiction, his conveyance would have passed the title. It was solely because he was acting beyond his territorial jurisdiction that the sale became inoperative and wholly ineffectual." As the case had not been approached by the Courts below from the correct point of view their Lordships felt that the action should not be determined without further investigation into the facts. It is true that, in the concluding portion of the judgment, their Lordships say, ' They only decide that the plaintiff has not wholly failed to disclose a good cause of action on the face of the record;" but their Lordships also say that they, "of course, offer no opinion whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed in establishing his right to any relief." The distinguishing feature of that case is that there, at the instance of the decree holder, the Sheriff had tried to sell property situated outside his jurisdiction, and in this he was "in the position of an ordinary person who has sold that which be had no title to sell." In my opinion, this case is no authority for the proposition that, independently of any provision of the Code, an auction purchaser has a right to recover his purchase-money by a regular suit when it is found that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest at all, though the property is situated within the jurisdiction of the execution Court. Act X of 1877, and the consolidating Act XIV of 1882, introduced material alterations in the Code. Section 315 of Act XIV of 1882 provided two things,-
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next