Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
Bangaru Muthu Venkatappa Nayanivaru, ... vs Golla Chinnabba Naidu And Ors. on 17 March, 1915 cites

Debendra Nath Sen vs Mirza Abdul Samed Seroji And Ors. on 18 February, 1909

227 : 39 L.J. Ch. 342 : 22 L.T. 190 : 19 W.R. 196, Kinniard v. Trollope (1838) 39 Ch. D. 66 : 57 L.J. Ch. 905 : 39 L.T. 433 : 37 W.R. 234 and Debendra Nath Sen v. Mirza Abdul Samed Seroji 1 Ind. Cas. 264 : 10 C.L.J. 150 at p. 163 were relied upon for this proposition. In view of the events that have taken place and of the present title of the parties, it is difficult to apply the rule of estoppel; but it is unnecessary, to consider whether it is applicable. In any case, Bomma Razu would not have taken a mortgage of the dasabandham rights if he had conceived himself to be entitled to right's of full ownership in it; and the conduct of Bomma Razu is, therefore, strong evidence in favour of the existence of the custom. He was deeply interested in denying the existence and questioning the effect of the custom, he would have had intimate knowledge of facts enabling him to determine whether the custom was prevalent, yet he acted to the detriment of his own interests in a manner which cart only be explained on the basis of the existence of the custom and a consciousness of its having binding force. Exhibits O, O1, OO, E, LL, K, H, H1 need not be referred to in detail; they ail support the same conclusion.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

T.R. Narasimma Murthi Sastri Brought In ... vs A.T.V. Ramasami Chettiar And Anr. on 19 December, 1912

26. It was argued, moreover, that the auction-sale on which the 1st defendant relies for his title to the property, was based on an attachment of the 3rd August 1885, dated three years prior to the alleged mortgage under Exhibit E, that at that time, even according to the 1st defendant's case, Bomma Razu had no rights over the dasabandham cess now in question, and that it could not entitle the auction-purchaser to acquire rights which had not been attached for the reason that they had not come into being at the time. On the other hand, the 1st defendant relies upon Section 70 of the Transfer of Property Act and the decisions in Ramasami Naik v. Ramasami Chetti 30 M. 255 : 17 M.L.J. 201 : 2 M.L.T. 167, Muniappa Naik v. Subramania Ayyan 18 M. 437 : 5 M.L.J. 60, Raja Thakur Barmha v. Jiban Ram Marwari 21 Ind. Cas. 936 : (1914) M.W.N. 118 : 18 C.W.N. 313 : 15 M.L.T. 137 : 12 A.L.J. 156 : 19 C.L.J. 161 : 26 M.L.J. 89 : 16 Bom.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Raja Thakur Barmha vs Jiban Ram Marwari on 25 November, 1913

26. It was argued, moreover, that the auction-sale on which the 1st defendant relies for his title to the property, was based on an attachment of the 3rd August 1885, dated three years prior to the alleged mortgage under Exhibit E, that at that time, even according to the 1st defendant's case, Bomma Razu had no rights over the dasabandham cess now in question, and that it could not entitle the auction-purchaser to acquire rights which had not been attached for the reason that they had not come into being at the time. On the other hand, the 1st defendant relies upon Section 70 of the Transfer of Property Act and the decisions in Ramasami Naik v. Ramasami Chetti 30 M. 255 : 17 M.L.J. 201 : 2 M.L.T. 167, Muniappa Naik v. Subramania Ayyan 18 M. 437 : 5 M.L.J. 60, Raja Thakur Barmha v. Jiban Ram Marwari 21 Ind. Cas. 936 : (1914) M.W.N. 118 : 18 C.W.N. 313 : 15 M.L.T. 137 : 12 A.L.J. 156 : 19 C.L.J. 161 : 26 M.L.J. 89 : 16 Bom.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Avula Charamudi vs Marriboyina Raghavulu And Anr. on 1 March, 1915

30. Finally, the question arises whether the Courts can recognise the existence of such a right as the plaintiff would be entitled to claim on the findings that we have given. We have had occasion recently in Avula Charamudi v. Marriboyina Baghavulu 28 Ind. Cas. 871 : 28 M.L.J. 471 : 18 M.L.T. 76 : (1915) M.W.N. 596 to consider the incidence of Section 27(6) of the Specific Relief Act and Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act, and for the reasons mentioned in that judgment, I am of opinion that the English Law relating to covenants running with the land, is not applicable in India. I am of opinion that the obligation to collect and pay the dasabandham cess was annexed to the ownership of the Dalavayipattada village and as the 1st defendant is the transferee of the village with notice of the obligation, it may be enforced as against him. No reasons have been pointed out why the obligation which is capable of being specifically enforced, should not be so enforced. On the other hand, the principles which underlie Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act favour the enforcement of the obligation.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next