Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.58 seconds)Nathu Khan vs Thakur Burtonath Singh on 2 December, 1921
35. The Privy Council, in Nathu Khan v. Burtonath Singh, AIR 1922 PC 176, which was a case under Section 55(l)(g) of the Act, held that, if a sale deed of properties, subject to a mortgage charge, contains an express declaration that the property was sold free from incumbrances, but it is found afterwards that there are previous charges thereon and the vendee is compelled to discharge the same in order to save the property purchased by him from being proceeded against by the previous charge-holders, the vendor under Section 55(l)(g), Sub-section (2), of the Act, is liable to the purchaser for moneys paid by him in discharge of the previous charges.
Section 38 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Nand Ram vs (Seth) Purshotam Das And Ors. on 7 December, 1932
30. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nand Ram v. Purshotam Das, AIR 1933 AD 203, was relied upon by the appellants, for the purpose of showing what was the scope of the words "a contract to the contrary", occurring in the initial portion of. Section 55 of the Act.
Bhagwati vs Banarsi Das on 23 January, 1928
36. More to the point is the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Mt. Bhagwati's case. AIR 1928 PC 98, referred to before, which also was a case under Section 55(1) (g), of the Act. In that case, the language of the deed of sale recognised only one of the mortgages existing on the property sold prior to the transaction of sale, and made no mention of the others. The deed further provided that, apart from the one mortgage, the property in question was free up to the date of the transaction from all rights of transfer by sale, mortgage, etc. It was further stated therein, inter alia, as quoted earlier, that, if an encumbrance etc., was found in respect of the whole or part of the property sold, and, as a result of his claim, the property passed cut of the possession of the vendees, then the vendors should have certain obligations. The property in question did not pass out of the possession of the vendee, but he was forced in a Court of law to answer the rights of another mortgage-holder of a very considerable amount and to meet the claim. On these facts, it was held by the Privy Council that the sum was paid under compulsion and it was undoubtedly a payment for which the vendee was entitled to be recouped from the vendor of the property for a payment so made. The vendee's suit was, therefore, decreed.
1