Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

1958 (10) TMI 53

d C.S. Venkiteswara Iyer, Adv. in A.S. No. 411 of 1955 For the Respondents: C.A. Ouseph, Adv. for Respondent No. 1 in A.S. Nos. 349 and 411 of 1955, C.S. Venkiteswara Iyer, Adv. (for No. 1) in A.S. No. 403 of 1955, C.S. Padmanabha Iyer, Adv. (for No. 2) and K. Rama Iyer, Adv. (for No. 6) JUDGMENT 1. These appeals arise from the decree in a suit for recovery of money. Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of the 1st defendant and the 6th defendant is the second defendant's wife. Defendants 1 to 6 executed an overdraft agreement Ext. A dated 24-10-1947 to the plaintiff Bank for ₹ 1,25,000/-. They also executed a promissory note Ext. B on the same day as collateral security for the loan. An equitable mortgage of the immovable properties des .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

efendants 7 to 11 were impleaded as persons having some interest in the properties. The 6th defendant died after the institution of the suit and her legal representatives were impleaded as additional defendants 12 to 19. The 7th defendant was sought to be adjudged insolvent during the pendency of the suit and defendants 20 and 21 are the interim receivers appointed in the insolvency proceedings. The plaintiffs suit is for recovery of a sum of ₹ 1,27,167-8-11 from defendants 1 to 6 and the properties in Schedules A to D. Defendants 1 to 11 contested the suit and their contentions so far as the same are necessary for the decision of these appeals alone need be stated. The 1st defendant contended that the properties described as Item No. .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

cording to the 10th defendant, the title deed in respect of the building was not deposited with the plaintiff and the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to a charge on the same. It is unnecessary to refer to the other contentions raised by the contesting defendants. The trial court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim interest at the enhanced rate, that the claim for ₹ 335-10-0 was not sustainable and that survey Nos. 27/3 and 4 and 2108/2 were not liable for the plaint claim. Disallowing these claims, a decree was passed allowing the plaintiffs to recover a sum of ₹ 1,18,397-14-9 and interest thereon from 1st April 1949. The decree also directed that the houses in items 1 to 8(a) Schedule A were to by sold last. .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

oes not lead to the conclusion that the 2nd defendant's undivided share in items 1 and 6 in Schedule A which originally belonged to his mother was also intended to be released on receipt of the aforesaid sum. However, taking into consideration the fact that the vendee of defendants 2 and 6 has deposited a sum of ₹ 17,500/- towards the plaint claim, a direction can be given that the interest of the 2nd defendant in item 1 of Schedule A and the building bearing No. 8/367 should be sold last. The plaintiff respondent has no serious objection to this course. Subject to this direction, A. S. No. 411 must be dismissed. 3. A. S. No. 349 by the 10th defendant raises only one point viz., whether the building in items 2 and 3 of Schedule C .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

is A. S. No. 403 of 55 by the plaintiff. The 1st point raised by the plaintiff-appellant is that the learned Judge ought to have allowed a charge on survey Nos. 27/3 and 4 and 2108/2 in item 8 (a) of Schedule A. The charge claimed was refused on the ground that patta of these properties alone had been handed over to the plaintiff along with title deeds of other properties and that this was insufficient to create a charge. The 1st defendant who raised this contention in a vague form had no case that there was any document of title other than the patta in respect of these properties. It was not shown in evidence either that there was any such document of title other than the patta. In these circumstances the court below was not justified in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

x dues, the plaintiffs security would not have been impaired in any manner. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to claim a charge in respect of this sum. It was also urged by the plaintiff that at least a personal decree against defendants 1 to 6 should have been given for this sum. Reliance is placed on section 70 of the Indian Contract Act in support of this argument. Section 70 reads as follows:- "Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of or to restore, the thing so done or delivered." Mulla in commenting on this section observ .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||