Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
M/S. Vilas Constructions vs M.A.Kharim And Others on 22 March, 2022 cites

Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese vs Mrs.Umadevi Nambiar on 31 October, 1996

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the seventh defendant at the outset submitted that in the absence of any document executed by the fourth defendant firm in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule property, the claim of title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property is without any basis. The learned counsel has reinforced the said submission pointing out that the power of attorneys, on the strength of which Exts.A6 to A13 assignment deeds were executed, would show that the partners of the fourth defendant firm have only authorised their power of attorney holder to sell their undivided right in the plaint schedule property and Exts.A6 to A13 assignment deeds were however executed without authority of law in as much as the same recite that they are executed on behalf of the fourth defendant firm. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese v. Umadevi Nambiar, 2017 (1) KLT 71, the learned counsel submitted that there is a lot of difference between documents executed in RFA Nos.7 & 8 of 2010 ..10..
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Addanki Narayanappa & Anr vs Bhaskara Krishtappa And 13 Ors on 21 January, 1966

excess of the power and the documents executed without power, and documents like Exts.A6 to A13 assignment deeds executed without power are only to be ignored as void. It was also argued by the learned counsel that partners of a firm cannot claim undivided rights in the properties of the firm and the assignment deeds executed by the partners of the fourth defendant firm in favour of the plaintiffs are void, even if they are construed as documents executed within the power conferred in terms of the power of attorneys. He relied on various provisions in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (the Act) as also on the decision of the Apex Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishtappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300, in support of the said proposition. It was also contended by the learned counsel that Exts.A6 to A13 assignment deeds executed by five among the seven partners of the fourth defendant firm do not, at any rate, confer any title on the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property in as much as the said conduct of the partners does not fall within the scope of the implied authority of the partners to bind the firm. Section 19(2)(g) of the Act was relied on by the learned counsel in support of the said contention. It was argued by the learned RFA Nos.7 & 8 of 2010 ..11..
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 410 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document
1