LexCHALIAGULLA RAMACHANDRAYYA versus BOPPANA SATYANARAYANA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 985 can be made under s. 479A of the Code of Criminal 1963 Procedure. Raghubir P•asai We are therefore of opinion thats. 479A has no application to prosecution for offences other than an offence under s. 193 and cognate sections in Chapter XI and that as regards other offences ss. 4 76, 4 77, 4 78 and 4 79 continue to apply even after the enactment of s. 4 79A. Whether the High Court is right or wrong in its view that the appellant appeared prirna f aoie to have committed offences under s. 467 and s. 467/l20B of the Indian Penal Code has not been argued before us and we express no opinion either way on that matter. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed . CHALi !\GULLA RAMACHANDRAYY A v. BOPPANA SATYANARAYANA & OTHERS DudhewaUa •• Clumanlal Mehra Dos G.pta/, 1963 MaJ10 - ' (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO , ' and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) Part performance-Transfer of intere•t in the property under contract-Absence of registered instrument-Indian statu- tory requirement-Engli•h Equitable Doctrine-Applic,1bility- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act 4 of 1882), s. 5JA. The plaintiffs brought a suit for partition, two of them claimed to be the reversioners of Chandrappa and the third a purchaser of the interest of the reversioners, defendants 4, 5 and 7. They were thus entitled to a 5/6th share of the pro- perties while the 6th defendant was entitled as a reversioner of Chandrappa to the remaining I /6th share. The property was in the possession of the three sons of Nagayya, the first three 1963 Chaifr:tulla Rama• chandrayya v. Boppana Satya- narayana 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. defendants, who denied these properties ever belonged to -chandrappa and also that the plaintiff's I and 2 or defendants 4 to 7 were his reversioners. 1'he main defence was that even if the properties belonged to Chandrappa, the defendants' father Nagayya became entitled to these as Chandrappa's illatom son-in·law, on the basis that Chandrappa _had brought Nagayya into his family under an arrangement that the latter ·would mafry his wife's sister's daughter Mangamma and in- herit the entire property after Chandrappa's death. The trial court diSmissed the suit. On appeal the High Court set aside the order and decreed the suit. On certificate, the only contention raised by the appellant in this court was that even though specific performance had not been sought, the contract itself would have the effect of transferring interest in the property to Nagayya on Chandrappa's death. Held that after enactment of s. 53A in the Transfer of Property Act, the only· case in which the English doctrine of equity of part pe1 formance could be applied in India is where the requirements of s. 53A are satisfied. In the instant case, 531\ has no application. It must be held therefore that the conniderations of equity cannot confer on Nagayya or his heirs any title in the lands which under the statute could b~ con- ferred only by a registered instrument. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. Challa Papi Reddi v. Challa Koti Reddi, (1872) 7 Mad. H. C:. R. 25; Bha'a Nahana v. Parbhu Hari, (1677 2 I.L.R. Born. 67; Asit~ Mahon Ghosh Moulikv. Mohan Ghos~ Mouli/c, (1916) 20 C.W.N. 901; Venkayyamma Rao v, Appa Rao, (1916) L. R. 43 I. A. 138; Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar, (1930) I. L. R. 58 Cal. 1235, held inapplicable. Arijj v. Jadunath Majunmdar, ( 1931) L. R. 58 I.A. 91, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 33! of 1961. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 29, 1956, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit No. 182 of 1950. B. Manavala Chowdhry and B. K. B. Naidu, for the appellants. Narasiah Chowdhry and R. Gopalakrishnan, for Respondents Nos. I, 2 and 8. .. ,• , A. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 987 1963. May 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA ].-This appeal brought on a certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is against a decision of that Court reversing .a decree granted by the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatnam, dismissing a suit for partition. ' Of the three plaintiffs who brought the suit, two claimed to be the reversioners of Boppauna Chandrappa, to whom we shall refer to as Chandrappa, and the third a purchaser of the interest of some of the reversioners, viz., defendants 4, 5 and 7. According to the plaint the three pl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.