AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 86

6.10. Conflict of views.-

According to the narrower view (represented by an early Madras case),1 the application must be made before the sale was ordered under section 2; once a final order is made as between the parties for sale under section 2, no order can be made under section 3. According to a contrary view, such an application can be made at any time before the sale is actually held under section 2. The wider view has been taken in

(i) Bombay,2

(ii) Calcutta,3

(iii) Madras (later case)4, and

(iv) Punjab.5

1. Angmuthu v. Ratna, ILR 48 Mad 920: AIR 1925 Mad 1234 (Kumaraswami Sastri & 0. Kriahnan, JJ.).

2. Teherbhai Abdulalli v. Nagindas, AIR 1979 Born 41 (Feb).

3. (a) Nitish Chandra v. Promod Kumar, AIR 1953 Cal 18 (19, 20), paras. 12, 19, 22; (b) Maniklal v. Pulin Behari, AIR 1950 Cal 431.

4. Jayarama Chettiar v. Annamalai Chettiar, 1966 ILR 2 Mad 530.

5. Seth Chiranji Lal v. Hardwari Lal, 1964 ILR 2 Punj 321 (P.C. Pandit, J.).



The Partition Act, 1893 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys