Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In Arunachala Thevar v. Madappa Thevar A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 949, where the consideration for a subsequent sale consisted of payment of cash in part and discharge of certain debts due to the purchasers and to their mother, it was held by Varadachariar, J., that these debts must be treated as discharged by the execution of the sale deed and on the footing that they also counted as payment.

11. A Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Ramamurthi and Alagiriiswami, JJ., in Veeramalal Vanniyar v. Thadikara Venkayya , after referring to various decisions on the point, including Marwadi Sumermal Jamatraj v. Thukkappa 57 L.W. 277 : (1944) 1 M.L.J. 376 : A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 391 and Arunachala Thevar v. Marappa Thevar A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 949 has held that it is the actual payment of the money and not a mere agreement to pay the money which alone confers the right so as to prevail over a prior agreement of sale. From a reading of the judgment in Veeramalai Vanniyar v. Thadikara Venkayya , it is clear that a typographical mistake has crept in the judgment. From the principles laid down in the judgment, we are sure that the learned Judges should have meant only A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 391 and not A.I.R. 1944 Mad 421 as found in the judgment since the former alone lays down the principles relating to the inter-predation of Section 27(b) of the old Act and approves the decision in Himatlal Motilal v. Vasudev Ganesh (1912) I.L.R. 36 Bom. 446, while the latter does not at all deal with that point. Therefore, the reference to A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 421 is a mistake for A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 391.