Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.18 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 138 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 179 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Murkanat Alias Kattayat Pattumayi ... vs Palakhal Raman Menon And Anr. on 27 November, 1902
In Kattayat Pathumayi v. Raman Menon 20 M. 740., the learned Judges say: If the question was not already settled by more decisions than one of this Court, and of the Calcutta High Court, we should entertain considerable doubt as to whether proceedings taken by a purchaser to obtain possession of the property purchased could be regarded as relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, when such, proceedings could not possibly affect the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree."
Kishori Mohun Roy Chowdhry And Ors. vs Chunder Nath Pal And Ors. on 23 May, 1887
The case in the Calcutta High Court which was referred to is that of Madhu Sudan Das v. Gobinda Pria Chowdhurani 27 C. 34., but that case is irreconcilable with the decision of the same Court in the earlier cases of Seru Mohun Bania v. Bhagobandin Pandey 9 C. 602 and Kishori Mohun Roy Chowdhry v. Chunder Nath Pal 14 C. 644. and was not followed in the recent case of Mahomed Mosraf v. Habil Mia 6 C.L.J. 749. In the case last mentioned the purchaser was the decree-holder and the assignee from him applied for possession under Section 318. It was held by.Brett and Mookerjee, JJ., that Section 244 did not apply and no appeal lay.
Section 55 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 88 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Moti Lal vs Makund Singh And Ors. on 17 May, 1897
The only other cases to which the learned Counsel for the respondent has referred are Kesri Narain v. Abul Hasan 26 A. 365., in which my brother Knox expressed the opinion that an application under Section 318 is an application for execution and Moti Lal v. Makund Singh 19 A. 477., in which an application for delivery of possession was held to be an application to take a step-in-aid of execution. For the reasons, I have already stated, I am unable to agree with those decisions.