Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-09-1941
Reported in : (1941)2MLJ707
..... have to hold therefore that the appellant being unable to establish his exclusive title to the property in suit on the basis of its allotment to his share at a valid partition, is not entitled to the relief claimed by him in the suit.5. the next ground relied on by the lower court in support of the conclusion that ..... to create interests in the immovable properties comprised therein. it cannot therefore be said that ex. a does not require registration. it clearly falls within section 17 of the registration act and being unregistered, it must be held to be inadmissible in evidence.4. it is, however, argued by mr. somasundaram for the respondent that even if this partition deed ..... of the partition till the respondent disturbed such possession in 1934, and reliance was placed on certain decisions which-were, however, cases decided before the transfer of property amendment act of 1929. the limits of the application of the doctrine of part performance have now been defined in section 53-a of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-14-1941
Reported in : (1941)2MLJ754
..... court accepting a third party's claim petition, held to be within time in spite of the fact that the suit instituted by the decree-holder challenging the validity of the order of the executing court had failed. this would depend on the decision as to the character and effect of the order of dismissal passed by ..... learned judges called 'ordinary parlance'. since a suit is, according to the explanation in section 3, instituted when the plaint is presented to the proper court, the act clearly draws a line between the presentation of a plaint and making an application and it cannot be obliterated unless there was something repugnant in the subject or context. ..... previous conclusions. the learned judges of the bombay court were not considering the case of a plaint at all but that of an application under the succession certificate act and had therefore no occasion to say anything about the plaint being treated as an application within the meaning of article 182. the second reason given by the .....
Tag this Judgment!