Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Dinabandhu Nandi vs Mashuda Khatun on 23 July, 1912
1120: 32 M. 534, 5 M. L. T. 246. and Dtnabandhu Nandi v. Mashuda Khatun 17 Ind. Cas. 263: 16 C. L. J. 318. are clearly in point. As the decree specifically decreed that the defendants were to pay any deficiency that might arise, it was not necessary to obtain another separate decree or order under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Periyasami Kone vs V.P.R.M. Muthia Chettiar on 17 November, 1913
Periasami Kone v. Muthia Chettiar 23 Ind. Cas. 515: 38 M. 677: 15 M. L. T. 232.
Section 90 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Rajah Of Kalahasti vs Rajah Kumara Venkata Perumal Raj ... on 4 October, 1911
3. Though the decree was irregular, having regard to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, we do not think it is open to the judgment-debtors to raise the question in execution proceedings. Rajah of Kalahasti v. Venkata Perumal 12 Ind. Cas.
1