Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.21 seconds)
Cherukuri Venkataratnam vs Bolla Guravayya And Ors. on 13 November, 1928 cites

Kurri Veerareddi And Ors. vs Kurri Bapireddi And Anr. on 9 March, 1904

31. We come then to the alternative defence put forward, based upon the equitable doctrine of part performance. The question whether, in view of the terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, there is room in this country for the doctrine of part performance, has given rise to much difference of judicial opinion, especially in this Court. I need only refer again to the Full Bench case Kurri Veerareddi v. Kurri Bapireddi 29 M. 336 : 1 M.L.T. 153 : 16 M.L.J. 395 which has been regarded as a decision upon this subject, and in which it was held, as already noted, that the provisions of the Statute are imperative and cannot be disregarded on equitable grounds and to the Letters Patent Appeal, Ramana-than Chetty v. Ranganathan Chetty 43 Ind. Cas. 138 : 40 M. 1134 : 6 L.W. 300 : 22 M.L.T. 173 : 33 M.L.J. 252; (1917) M.W.N. 757, where of a Bench of three learned Judges two refused to recognise the principle, while the third was prepared to act upon equities arising out of the parties' conduct.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

K.S. Rm. Ramanathan Chetty And Ors. vs Ranganathan Chetty And Ors. on 4 May, 1917

Under these circumstances, it is obviously useless to canvass the decision of the Full Bench or examine the judgments in Kurri Veerareddi v. Kurri Bapireddi 29 M. 336 : 1 M.L.T. 153 : 16 M.L.J. 395 and Ramanathan Chetty v. Ranganathan Chetty 43 Ind. Cas. 138 : 40 M. 1134 : 6 L.W. 300 : 22 M.L.T. 173 : 33 M.L.J. 252; (1917) M.W.N. 757 to show that the law ought to be applied as there laid down--the Full Bench has decided they are wrong. We are, therefore, left with these facts--some of them assumed or admitted--since no evidence except certain documents has so far been taken. The plaintiff made an agreement (Ex. I) for sale of A, A-I schedule lands; and tendered a sale deed duly executed to 1st defendant to whom they delivered possession. According to the plaintiffs they further tendered him a simple mortgage-deed. These two now appear compounded as A-2. The defendant says that the mortgage was a sale and that a fresh agreement was entered into whereby all the mortgage properties A and A I and B were sold to him. He first relies on the sale-deed A-2 which he has finally failed to get registered; he next relies on the agreement (Ex. I) (possibly coupled with an alleged oral agreement to sell B schedule lands) plus his possession. Is he entitled under these circumstances to rely on the doctrine of part performance? Has he been defrauded? The two learned Judges who heard the appeal in O.S. No. 17 of 1920 in the first instance were divided as to the amount of purchase money paid; the respondent here says only Rs. 2,000 was paid. The Subordinate Judge has not decided the matter but has referred defendant to a separate suit after delivery to plaintiff of the property has taken place. We are, therefore, not in a position to say that the defendant has paid the whole consideration to plaintiff who according to him is now trying dishonestly to recover what he had practically already sold.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next