Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.05 seconds)
K.Ali vs M.J.Cherian on 7 December, 2012 cites

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008

22. It was very vehemently contended on behalf of the appellant that declaration of title was necessary in the case on hand since the 1st plaintiff did not derive title under Ext.A4. For the above proposition, learned counsel relied on the decision in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by lrs. and others [(2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594]. In the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, the circumstances under which various prayers will have to be made have been enumerated. It says in detail whether along with prayer for injunction, declaration of possession is necessary in view of the contentions taken by the defendant in the suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 2311 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Janak Dulari Devi & Anr vs Kapildeo Rai & Anr on 15 April, 2011

14. Learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the case put forward by the 1st plaintiff that the defendant was allowed to occupy the house for a short period on permissive basis is strengthened by the fact that even though cheque for Rs.65,000/- was dated 15.05.1995, it was presented for encashment only on 07.08.1995. Even assuming, according to the learned counsel, that possession was not handed over, suit was a comprehensive one seeking recovery of possession and there is nothing defective in the suit and it cannot be said that R.S.A Nos.1116 & 1137/2013 10 the title has not passed. Learned counsel also drew inspiration from the fact that the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed which means that the title has passed and it cannot be said that the title continues to vest with him. True, in the decision in Janak Dulari Devi & Anr. vs. Kapildeo Rai & Anr. (AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2521), the Apex Court had occasion to hold that when it is discernible from the document or from the conduct that the title was entitled to be passed only on payment of entire sale consideration, the mere fact that the document of sale recites that title has passed may not have any consequence in passing of title. When there is clear indication that title has to pass from vendor to vendee only on payment of entire consideration and it is shown by the vendor that the sale consideration has not been fully paid, merely because document of assignment has mentioned that title has passed will not give any benefit to the vendee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 54 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1