Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)
Sontyana Gopala Dasee (Dead) And Ors. vs Inaputalapula Rami And Ors. on 21 January, 1921 cites

Narahari Sahu And Anr. vs Sira Korithan Naidu And Ors. on 19 February, 1913

4. The suit lands were unenfranchised service inam lands at the date of Exhibits A and B, though they have been enfranchised since. The mortgages are, therefore, by the provisions of Section 5 of Madras Act III of 1895 clearly void; and there is ample authority for holding that the provisions of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be applied so as to save a transaction of this sort. Vide Narahari Saku v. Kira Korithan Naidu 19 Ind. Cas.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Javerbhai Jorabhai vs Gordhan Narsi on 22 December, 1914

6. The learned Vakil for the respondents relies largely on a case reported in Javerbhai Jorabhai v. Gordhan Narsi 28 Ind. Cas. 442 : (sic). B. (sic) : 17 Bom. L.R. 259, where a house and certain properties were mortgaged and the mortgage was void under the provisions of the Bhagdari Act (Bombay Act V of 1862). The mortgage-deed, however contained a covenant for compensation payable to the mortgagee in the event of dispossession. The defendants contended that the mortgage being void, the suit was barred by limitation. It was, however, held that the covenant was a collateral contract independent of the invalid mortgage and that the mortgagee could recover on it. The learned Judges in that case, however, went further and as justifying the plaintiffs' claim for compensation for disturbance under the covenant, they decided (page 372) Page of 39 B, [Ed.] that the possession of the plaintiff from 1897 to 1909 give him an absolute title to the limited interest of a mortgagee in possession, and ' in assertion of that right held adversely to the defendants who continuously attorned to him."
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Adam Umar Sale vs Bapu Bawaji And Ors. on 15 October, 1908

The case reported in Adam Umar Sale v. Bapu, Bawaji 1 Ind. Cas. 663 : 33 B. 116 : 10 Bom. L.R. 1128 is authority for the proposition, if any is needed, that possession obtained through a transaction which the law prohibits and declares to be void is adverse, and the learned Judges there point out that it is just such possession originating without colour of title, which is contemplated by the law of limitation.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Punugu Subbiah vs Nukalapati Rami Reddi on 12 January, 1916

8. On the memorandum of objections it is argued for the appellants that only three years' rents and profits can be recovered, on the ground that the covenants in an usufructuary mortgage are personal and that the title of the true owner in not transferred to the adverse owner who has remained in possession for the period required by the Statute of Limitation [Of Tich borne v. Weir (1893) 67 L.T. 735 : 4 R. 26], the conditions do not affect the latter and cannot be enforced against him. The case in Punugu Subbiah v. Nukalapati Rami Reddi 33 Ind. Cas. 326 : 30 M.L.J. 331 : 19 M.L.T. 210 (1916) 1 M.W.N. 239 : 39 M. 959 is also quoted. It is admitted that had the mortgages been valid, the 3 years' rents and profits claimed by the respondent would be recoverable. The cases cited deal with the possession of strangers to the true owner and do not apply to the present Base, where as pointed out above the parties all along considered that they occupied the position of mortgagors and mortgagees and the provisions (if any) made for the disposal of the rents and profits of the mortgaged property must have been perfectly well known to them all. It appears to us that consistently with our judgment in the appeal that the parties after the expiration of the period of limitation in fast occupied the position of usufructuary mortgagors and mortgagees, we must hold that, in the circumstances of this case, rents and profits from 1906 to 1914, the date of suit, are recoverable.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sundara Gurukkal vs Subramania Archakar And Ors. on 7 October, 1912

Further in Sundara Gurukkal v. Subramania Archakar 16 Ind. Cas. 960 (a decision of this Court) it was held that, by virtue of adverse possession, a person does not acquire a higher title than he has prescribed for. There, the office of Archaka of a temple and the properties attached thereto were usufructuarily mortgaged and after the expiration of the period of redemption, the mortgagee continued in possession for the prescriptive period. The learned Judges held that the mortgagee acquired only the right of a usufructuary mortgagee and not the right of absolute ownership.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1