Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.86 seconds)Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Dhanapala Chettiar vs Minor Krishna Chettiar, Represented By ... on 19 July, 1954
On March 28, 1958 the Divisional Bench hearing the
appeals referred to a Full Bench the following question
"Whether the decision in Veerappa Chettiar v.
Subramania lyer (I.L.R. 52 Mad. 123) requires
reconsideration."
The Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd vs P. J. Pappu And Another on 16 August, 1965
802,1819-822.,
523
Nath(1), Behrein Petroleum Co. Ltd., v. P. J. Pappu (2) ,
Zamindar of Etiyapuram v. Chidambaram Chetty(1).
As to the 4th question we find that the immoveable
properties have been sold in execution of a decree ordering
sale for the discharge of the encumbrance thereon in favour
of the appellant. Section 73(1) proviso (c) therefore
applies and the proceeds of sale after defraying the
expenses of the sale must be applied in the first instance
in discharging the amount due to the appellant. Only the
balance left after discharging this amount can be dis-
tributed amongst the respondents. It follows that the High
Court was in error in holding that the respondents were
entitled to rateable distribution of the assets along with
the appellant.
Raja Jaga Veera Rama Venkateswara ... vs Chidambaram Chetty And Ors. on 12 April, 1920
802,1819-822.,
523
Nath(1), Behrein Petroleum Co. Ltd., v. P. J. Pappu (2) ,
Zamindar of Etiyapuram v. Chidambaram Chetty(1).
As to the 4th question we find that the immoveable
properties have been sold in execution of a decree ordering
sale for the discharge of the encumbrance thereon in favour
of the appellant. Section 73(1) proviso (c) therefore
applies and the proceeds of sale after defraying the
expenses of the sale must be applied in the first instance
in discharging the amount due to the appellant. Only the
balance left after discharging this amount can be dis-
tributed amongst the respondents. It follows that the High
Court was in error in holding that the respondents were
entitled to rateable distribution of the assets along with
the appellant.
Girja Datt Singh vs Gangotri Datt Singh on 25 January, 1955
see Theobald on Wills, 12th ed. p. 129. ,In Giria Datt v.
Gangotri (1)the Court held that the two persons who had
identified the testator at the time of the registration of
the will and had appended their signatures at the foot of
the endorsement by the Sub-Registrar, were not attesting
witnesses. as their signatures were not put "animo
attestandi".