Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.49 seconds)Annamalai Chetty vs Muthiah Chetty And Ors. on 1 December, 1921
So far as the vendor is concerned both
in mind and actual conduct, there is a total divestiture of
all his right, title and interest in the property. This
applies only in a case where there is a clear manifestation
of the intention of the owner to divest himself of the right
over the property. On the other hand in the case of an
executory contract the possession of the transferee until
the date of registration of the conveyance is permissive or
derivative and in law is deemed to be on behalf of the owner
himself. The correctness of the decision in Annamalai v.
Muthiah (supra) cannot, therefore, be doubted.
M. Ar. Rm. M. Annamalai Chettiar And Ors. vs Al. A.C.T. Solayappa Chettiar And Anr. on 16 January, 1935
6. In S.A. No. 426 of 1965 these concurrent findings of
the trial court as well as the first appellate court on the
question of plaintiff's title had not been challenged. The
only question raised therein and considered by the learned
Single Judge was whether the plaintiff was in possession
within 12 years of suit in order to enable him to recover
possession and whether for that purpose he could say that
his vendors and before him, Dasu Reddi were in possession of
the property and consequently he could add that period to
the period before 6.6.1949, the date of sale in his favour.
The learned Judge was of the view that if Varada Reddi's
possession was permissive, then the possession should be
deemed to have continued with the original owner Dasu Reddi
and thereafter his sons, but if on the other hand the pos-
session of Varada Reddi was adverse even as against the
original owner, the plaintiff would not be entitled to add
the period before 6.6.1949 and such possession could not
enure to his benefit. After referring to the decision in
Annamalai Chettiar and Another v. Muthiah Chettiar and
Another, ILR 19651 Madras 254 the learned Judge held that
Varada Reddi's possession was adverse to Dasu Reddi from
10.7.1946, on the assumption that a sale had been effected
orally even on 10.7.1946 leaving only execution of the sale
deed to be done later. This assumption of the learned Single
Judge was found to be faulty by the Division Bench.
1