Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 4 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 64 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Thota China Subha Rao vs Mattapalli Raju on 10 May, 1949
However in
this connection a reference was also made to Thota China
Subba Rao and Ors. v. Matapelli Raju and Ors(2) That
decision is hardly of any importance because an extreme
contention was advanced on behalf of the mortgagee resisting
a suit for redemption that he continued to be in possession
in part performance of the agreement which argument was
repelled by the Court on the observation that the mortgagee
had never been in possession and the contention that he was
always in constructive possession could hardly assist him.
Shew Bux Mohata And Others vs Bengal Breweries Ltd. And Others on 15 September, 1960
The averments of Motilal in his own application would
prima facie be sufficient to sustain an application under
order XXII, rule 10. The question whether he has acquired an
interest or not in the property either by assignment or
devolution which is the subject matter of dispute in this
appeal would have to be answered on merits but the narration
of chronological events as delineated hereinabove would
clearly show that Motilal has more than a mere semblance of
title which this Court will have to investigate. And even if
stricto sensu the application would not fall under order
XXII, rule 10, CPC, yet section 146 of the Code of Civil
Procedure would certainly enable Motilal to maintain the
application (See Smt. Saila Bala Desai v. Smt. Nirmala
Sundai Dassai and another, at 1291, referred to with
approval in Shew Bux Mohata & Ors. v. Bengal Breweries Ltd &
Ors. Undoubtedly the High Court was reluctant to overlook
the gross delay in preferring the application but even after
this reluctance the High Court having granted the
application, we would consider it imprudent to reject the
application on the ground of delay.