Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.36 seconds)
Pachaiappan And Ors. vs S.P. Koon Mari on 25 June, 1996 cites

Chinna Munuswami Nayudu vs Sagalaguna Nayudu And Anr. on 5 March, 1925

In Chinna Munuswami Nayudu v. Sagalaguna Nayudu 51 M.L.J. 229 : I.L.R. 49 Mad. 387 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 699, a Division Bench of this Court has considered the nature of a contract of reconveyance and held that the undertaking by the vendee under the said contract was not a mere standing offer, but was an executory contract, giving a right to the vendor to get a conveyance from the vendee and was assignable by the vendor. It was also held that the contract was part of the same transaction as the sale and was supported by consideration and that it was not personal to the original vendor, but was assignable and the same was not void for perpetuity, as the period for the exercise of the option was definite and limited.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Guruswami Gounder vs Kesave Reddiar And Anr. on 3 November, 1995

20. Recently, in Guruswami Gounder v. Kesave Reddiar and Anr. , a learned Judge of this Court has considered this question and after referring to the various rulings on the point held that no uniform standard or formula as to what would constitute false case or approaching court with unclean hand can be adopted and the facts and circumstances of each case have to be considered. The learned Judge has said:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ramjanam Bharthi vs Mt. Dhurandhar Kuer And Ors. on 18 March, 1959

In Ramjanam Bharthi v. Dhurandhar Kuer , the suit was for specific performance of an agreement under which the defendant had agreed to execute a deed of usufructuary mortgage for a certain amount. The plaintiff thought it proper to get the deed prepared on the stamp paper showing that it had been executed by the defendant, though the defendant had not actually done so. Beyond that, the plaintiff had not done anything and in fact, no amount was shown in the deed as due from the defendant higher than that agreed to; nor the property mentioned in the deed differed from or in excess of that agreed between them. The Court held that the fraud played by the plaintiff was not of such a nature as to bring in the application of the principle of law that the person who has not come to court with clean hands is not entitled to get the equitable relief of specific performance. The following passage in the judgment is relevant:
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1