Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: title Court: chennai Page 1 of about 65,983 results (0.052 seconds)

Visalakshi Ammal and ors. Vs. the Coimbatore Janopakara Nidhi Limited, ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1942)1MLJ44

..... , warehouse keeper's certifi-goods, any pledge made by him, when cate, or warrant or order for delivery,acting in the ordinary course of busi- or any other document of title to goodsness of a mercantile agent, shall be may make a valid pledge of suchas valid as if lie were expressly author- goods or document : ised by the owner of the goods tomake the same; provided that the pawnee acts in good ..... 178-a says that if the pawnor obtains possession of the goods under a contract which is voidable under section 19 or 19-a of the contract act, then, a pledge by him would be valid if the pledgee had no notice of the want of or defect of title provided also that the contract had not been rescinded at the time, of the pledge. ..... where it is only a case of safe custody, the pawnor had no title at oil voidable or valid nor 'juridical possession' as opposed to bare custody ..... in the cases not covered by section 178-a, the old rule that a person cannot give his alienee a title higher than what hie himself has continues to apply. ..... such as to raise a reasonableunder section 19 or section 19-a, but the presumption, that the pawnorcontract has not been rescinded at the is acting improperly : time of the pledge, the pawnee ac- provided also that such goods orquires a good title to the goods, pro- documents have not been obtainedvided he. ..... lower appellate court found that the respondent bank took the pledge bona fide and without any notice of the defect in the title of the pawnor and that the pledge is valid. .....

A/m. Vadapalani Andavar Temple Devasthanam Rep. by its Dy. Commissione ...

Court : Chennai

..... of the findings recorded under point nos.3 and 4 and in view of the finding under point nos.6 and 7, the first respondent/plaintiff is found to be entitled to a declaration of title in respect of the suit property as prayed for and for an injunction against the appellant/first defendant temple not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of ..... joseph's college, tiruchirappalli, represented by its procurator, the first respondent herein initially against the appellant herein/first defendant alone for the following reliefs: 1) a declaration of title of the first respondent/plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit property; 2) a permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein/first defendant, their men, or agents or any person claiming under ..... filed a suit on the original side of the high court as c.s.no.198/1931 against the first respondent/plaintiff society, janakiram pillai and one rajammal claiming title to the property and praying for a declaration of their title in respect of the property comprised in s.no.514/1, patta no.63 and an injunction against the third respondent therein not to alienate the property and for other ..... appellant/first defendant that patta came to be issued in the year 1988 in the name of the appellant/first defendant temple and at least from the said date the limitation for declaration of title would have started running and that since the suit was not filed within 12 years thereafter, the suit is barred by limitation .....

Sarasamma Vs. G. Pandurangan and Others

Court : Chennai

..... 2009 purchased the property from t.g.srinivasalu naidu and the plaintiff-sarasamma on the basis of the power of attorney executed by them and as the plaintiff-sarasamma and t.g.srinivasalu naidu have no right, title or interest over the properties of the deceased-testator r.gopal, as held above, the plaintiff in t.o.s.no.38 of 2008 is not legally justified in effecting sale of the properties or estates of the ..... over all the property and estate, movable or immovable, of the deceased, throughout the state in which the same is or are granted, and shall be conclusive as to the representative title against all debtors of the deceased, and all persons holding property which belongs to him, and shall afford full indemnity to all debtors, paying their debts and all persons delivering up such ..... to the properties of the deceased r.gopal, in the absence of proving the alleged will and hence, as the plaintiff-sarasamma and her husband-t.g.srinivasalu naidu have no right, interest or title over the suit properties, they have no right to execute any sale deed in favour of parties or execute any document in respect of the same and therefore, any party who purchased ..... this court has already held that since the will executed by the deceased r.gopal naidu has not been proved by the plaintiff-sarasamma, she has no right, title or interest over the suit properties and therefore, she has no right to interfere with the possession of the defendant-pandurangan or sell or encumber the suit properties .....

V.D.S.R.Re.Rolling Mill. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner ...

Court : Chennai

..... possession the purchaser of a granted land from the original grantee, the supreme court has observed that the person, who comes into possession under colour of title from the original grantee if he intends to claim adverse possession as against state, must disclaim his title and plead his hostile claim to the knowledge of the state and the state had not taken any action thereon within the prescribed period ..... the alienation itself is contrary to the conditions of grant and revenue code, opposed to public policy and the constitutional provisions, as held by the supreme court, the petitioner who claims to have acquired a derivative title through the purchaser of the assignee, has no legal or statutory right to contend that the conditions imposed in the assignment cannot be enforced against him ..... argument that it was a grant subject to non-alienation for 20 years and that the transfer being within the said period of prohibition, was void under section 4 of the act, yet the right or title to the land in question acquired by the respondents 3 and 4, being tenants thereof, by virtue of the grant of occupancy by the competent authority, viz. ..... in the government grant act, grant of government land will not be governed by the provisions of the transfer of property act, unless specific provisions are made in the order of grant by the government that title to the property will pass on to the assignee subject to complying with the conditions of grant or after the expiry of a certain period. .....

Ms. Infovision Private Limited. Vs. the Inspector of Police and ors.

Court : Chennai

..... that l.deva reddiyar had only one son by the name of ramasamy reddiyar, who was her husband set up false claim over the property by fabricating an "enjoyment certificate" purportedly issued by an office titled as "uthavi aanayar aluvalaham" at tiruvannamalai on 20.06.1969 (annexure-23) certifying that she is the wife of one ramasamy reddiyar who was the only son of v.deva reddiyar s/o.venkatachala reddiyar who was the owner ..... 18 cents was purchased by c-party during the year 1988-1990 from the four sons of v.devarajulu reddiyar @ deva reddiyar who is the real predecessor in the title to the said properties as enumerated in para 5 above which would clearly establish that they along with the two other co-owners are the absolute owners of the said ..... disputed extent comprised in survey no.16/7, alandur village admeasuring 18 cents on the strength of an agreement of sale dated 02.03.2009 entered into with one r.pankajammal who has been claiming title over the said extent of 18 cents from the year 2006 onwards by way of "enjoyment rights" as the alleged daughter-in-law of one deva reddiyar, son of venkatarama reddiyar. ..... the tahsildar who is expected only to make a survey of the physical condition of the property in his so called report has proceeded to give a certificate of title to the fourth respondent for an extent of 150 grounds in alandur village, based on which the second respondent blindly proceeded to give a finding that the fourth respondent is the absolute owner .....

K.Chandrasekara Rao and ors. Vs. C.Masilamani and ors.

Court : Chennai

..... dated 03.11.986 executed by ramalakshmi is held, by this court, to be a true, genuine and valid one, the appellants/plaintiffs (in c.s.no.980 of 1999) are not entitled (i) to obtain the relief of declaration of their title in respect of the suit property; and (ii) also not entitled to get the relief of delivery of possession by defendants 5 to 9 in respect of the suit property in their favour and accordingly, the substantial questions of law point nos. ..... proceedings are marked as a suit, then, it is not open to a propounder of a will to contend that the caveator has no locus standi.100.an individual who claims the property by means of a paramount title or claims adversely to the testatrix or disputes their right to deal with the property sought to be disposed of by the will, has no locus standi to lodge a caveat. ..... it is, inter alia, observed that "subsequent purchaser who filed the suit for injunction or alternatively for recovery of possession against same 't' and when he relied on the same will to prove title, it is held that the judgment in suit filed by 'c' against 't' is relevant piece of evidence and had material bearing in suit filed by the subsequent purchaser against 't'. ..... it is true that in the earlier part of the will, the testator has stated that his daughter -'bk' shall be the heir, owner and title-holder of his entire remaining moveable and immovable property but in the later part of the same will he has clearly stated that on the death of 'bk', the brothers of the .....

Vittal Sampath Kumaran Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner U ...

Court : Chennai

..... any rate, the possession, if any, that would have been secured by the petitioner on the advent of the sale deed in his favour would amount to a possession of a trespasser, since the vesting of the title on the government became complete the taking possession under section 11(6), which was done on 30.01.1990, as evidenced by the records available in the file produced for the perusal of the court. ..... further, registration of a sale / purchase document under registration act 1908 cannot mean that the purchaser is having title as a registered owner, because his right in the land is only when it is reflected as a registered owner in the village accounts or revenue records of competent authority ..... petitioner had purchased the subject land, on 25.11.2011, from praba kannan, who did not possess any valid title deed to alienate the subject land in favour of the petitioner that too after a lapse of 24 years. ..... 2011, the erstwhile vendor of the subject land did not possess any marketable title deed and as such the said alienation is null and void. ..... the proceeding of the competent authority under the tamil nadu urban land (ceiling and regulation) act 1978 came to an end confirming the title on the government on the date of taking possession of the land ..... ..... petitioner has further submitted that the second respondent without application of mind, has passed the impugned order in the name of erstwhile vendor's who have no right, title or interest in whatsoever manner over the above said property. .....

Raju Naicker and ors. Vs. Ekanathan and J. Thiruvengadam (Person of Un ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2004Mad465

..... the view of the learned single judge that there was no executable decree against the defendants 2 and 3 may not be correct as there was not only a decree for declaration of title in the 1960 suit, but the decree was also passed against all the defendants for costs and the decree in such circumstances would be executable against the defendants 2 and 3. ..... as far as demand for property tax for subsequent years is concerned, that would not help the defendants as we hold that the plaintiffs have established title to the suit property and if the defendants 2 and 3 claim adverse possession against kuppammal, they must prove that they have been in possession of the suit property either physically or constructively for a period of 12 years prior ..... it is no doubt true that the earlier suit was filed only for declaration of title and the said suit was decreed on 16.1.1963 which was affirmed in appeal on 4.7. ..... the finding of the learned single judge on the question of title to the suit property in favour of kuppammal as well as in favour of the plaintiffs is not ..... counsel therefore submitted that the view of the learned single judge that the defendants 2 and 3 have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession is not sustainable.15. mr. t.r. ..... learned single judge found that the title to the suit property was claimed by the defendants 2 and 3 herein in the 1960 suit not only on the strength of will said to have been executed by molagammal and varadammal, but also as the nearest heirs .....

D.Murali. Vs. S.Kanagaraj and ors.

Court : Chennai

..... of the legal notice and it was answered by him on 28.12.2008 since the 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the property by a sale deed in his favour and he has perfected his title by adverse possession, that even assuming that they are lessees for the land they are entitled to purchase land under section 9 of the city tenants protection act provided that the plaintiff proves that ..... adverse possession not only entitles the adverse possessor, like every other possessor, to be protected in his possession against all who cannot show a better title, but also, if the adverse possessor remains in possession for a certain period of time produces the effect either of barring the right of the true owner, and thus converting the possessor into the owner ..... the admitted case of first defendant that he got right to the superstructures alone and the title to the site upon which the superstructures are present remained with krishna sah and others. ..... adverse possession is that form of possession or occupancy of land which is inconsistent with the title of any person to whom the land rightfully belongs and tends to extinguish that person's title, which provides that no person shall make an entry or distress, or bring an action to recover any land or rent, but within twelve years next after the time when the right first accrued ..... holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute .....

Pee and Dee Lands Holdings Private Limited Vs. The District Revenue Of ...

Court : Chennai

..... person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass-book under this act, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his rights under chapter vi of the specific relief act, 1963 (central act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta pass-book shall be amended in accordance with any ..... petitioner, through the registered sale deed dated 07.10.2011, purchased the lands in question and also got patta issued by the second respondent on 13.01.2012, it is sure of his right, title and possession and it is for the rival claimants to approach the civil forum, for the reason that according to them, some of the lands belong to marutheeswarar temple and some ..... the eighth respondent that in the light of the order passed in w.p.no.15610 of 2012, dated 23.07.2012, it is for the petitioner to approach the civil court to establish it's title and possession and therefore, the respondents 8 and 3 cannot be directed to approach the competent forum to establish their right and possession and therefore, prays for the dismissal of this writ ..... for the petitioner, with regard to the rival claim projected by the respondents 3 and 8, submitted that there is a discrepancy with regard to paimash/survey numbers in the documents of title of mrs.usha and mrs.ragini [respondents 8 and 3] and it is not at all possible and though at the relevant point of time, paimash number was in vogue, curiously, .....