cites: 909040

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)

T. Devarajulu Naidu vs Kondammal And Anr. on 14 February, 1924 cites

Unde Rajaha Raje Rajah Velugoti Sree ... vs Thatikola Subbiah on 15 September, 1921

This position is also supported by the ruling in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Isakapalli Subbiah (1903) 26 Mad. 410 where the possession of a receiver was held to be the possession of the rightful party.

Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Vedanayaga Mudaliar vs Vedammal on 12 April, 1904

Again, in Vedanayaya Mudaliar v. Vedammal (1904) 27 Mad. 59, it was ruled, in circumstances similar to this that, where a receiver is in possession, it was not necessary to sue for consequential relief, by way of recovery of possession, but that it was sufficient to sue for a mare declaration.

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Section 42 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 1337

Section 145 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 9230

Section 146 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 1843

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

Unde Rajaha Raje Rajah Velugoti Sree ... vs Thatikola Subbiah on 15 September, 1921

Vedanayaga Mudaliar vs Vedammal on 12 April, 1904

Section 42 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]

Section 145 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]

Section 146 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]