Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Neelakantan Damodaran Namboori And ... vs Velayudhan Pillai Narayana Pillai And ... on 19 May, 1958

Peerukannu Shahul Hameed And Ors. vs Osanaru Pillai Ahammed Kannu And Ors. on 23 January, 1969

"There is in law no right without a remedy; and, if all remedies for enforcing a right are gone, the right has in point of law ceased to exist. In the case of a debt the ordinary and universal remedy is by action against the debtor. There may, however, and sometimes does exist another remedy, not by action against the debtor, but arising out of the possession of property of the debtor which by law or contract may be detained by the creditor until the debt is paid, This latter remedy may exist, although the remedy by action is barred; and in that case the debt continues to exist so far as is necessary for the enforcement of this right of lien but not for enforcing the remedy by action. When the debt is barred by the statute and the creditor has no lien, the debt is gone for all purposes."
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Munnar Woods vs The State Of Kerala on 22 July, 2009

23. The learned Government Pleader relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Neelakantan Damodaran Namboothiri v. Velayudhan Pillai Narayana Pillai, AIR 1958 SC 832 and the decision of this Court in Sarojini v. Santha Trading Co. & Others, 1969 KLT 412, would contend that a recital in a document in confirmation of pre- existing rights in a person, who had no such right in fact, would not w.p.c.15416/07 25 convey any right in the property to him. In my opinion that reliance of these decisions in this case is misplaced, since the document in which the pre-existing right is confirmed is executed in favour of the very same person who is now disputing that right and that person accepted the mortgage created by that document as security relying on the recital regarding the pre-existing right, which right if was not there, they would not have acted on the basis of that document to advance money to the executant of that document. Here, if the petitioner did not have the title to the property the Government would not have advanced loan to Pylee Varghese on the basis of Ext.P16 mortgage. In fact at the relevant time the Government was the best person to ascertain the title of Pylee Varghese on the property since they only assigned the property to him and they must have been in possession of documents to confirm the same.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Jagan - Full Document

Chandra Gopi vs U.K.Gopalakrishnan

was a case in which the title was with the wife as per a kanom deed and the recitals in a hypothecation bond executed by the husband and wife were pressed into service to contend that they had joint ownership. The recitals in the bond were to the effect that the property belonged to the husband and wife and they were in possession. Relying on Neelakantan Damodaran Namboodiri v. Velayudhan Pillai Narayana Pillai, AIR 1958 SC 832 (para 17), this Court held that a recital in confirmation of pre-existing rights in a person who had no such rights in fact, would not convey any rights in the property to him.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Chandra Gopi vs U.K.Gopalakrishnan

was a case in which the title was with the wife as per a kanom deed and the recitals in a hypothecation bond executed by the husband and wife were pressed into service to contend that they had joint ownership. The recitals in the bond were to the effect that the property belonged to the husband and wife and they were in possession. Relying on Neelakantan Damodaran Namboodiri v. Velayudhan Pillai Narayana Pillai, AIR 1958 SC 832 (para 17), this Court held that a recital in confirmation of pre-existing rights in a person who had no such rights in fact, would not convey any rights in the property to him.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Chandra Gopi vs U.K.Gopalakrishnan

was a case in which the title was with the wife as per a kanom deed and the recitals in a hypothecation bond executed by the husband and wife were pressed into service to contend that they had joint ownership. The recitals in the bond were to the effect that the property belonged to the husband and wife and they were in possession. Relying on Neelakantan Damodaran Namboodiri v. Velayudhan Pillai Narayana Pillai, AIR 1958 SC 832 (para 17), this Court held that a recital in confirmation of pre-existing rights in a person who had no such rights in fact, would not convey any rights in the property to him.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Adhmarani Nachiyar And Anr. vs Kumaragurubaramanandham And Anr. on 12 November, 1990

7. Learned Counsel submits that even assuming that the parties treated the document as a partition deed, it is open to the court to construe it as a family arrangement and hold that the first plaintiff obtained an interest in the property. I do not accept this contention. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court in Neelakantan v. Velayudhan . The Supreme Court held that in a deed of release where it was stated that by reason of sarvaswadanam marriage, the appellants were entitled to all movable and immovable properties belonging to IIIom and, therefore, the executant was executing the release deed conferring all the rights and claims they had obtained over the IIIom properties of sarvaswadanam form of marriage, the document, in terms confers the pre-existing rights of the appellants and when in fact they had no pre-existing rights, the document does not confer any interest1 to them. The principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court would squarely apply to the present case. The partition deed proceeds on the footing that the first plaintiff had pre-existing rights in the property, but in fact the first plaintiff did not have any such right. Hence Ex. A-4 cannot confer any right on the first plaintiff as such.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Meenakshi Amma vs Narayani Amma on 7 September, 2007

5. Learned counsel appearing for appellants argued that there is no evidence to prove that S.A.No.49/1994 5 the tarwad obtained plaint schedule property on lease so as to divide the same under Ext.A1 partition deed. Relying on the decision of Apex court in Neelakantan Damodaran Namboori v. Velayudhan Pillai (AIR 1958 832) and this Court in Sarojini v. Santha Trading Co. (1969 KLT 412) it was argued that mere recital in Ext.A1 will not cloth respondents with title to the property unless there was pre-existing title and as there is no evidence to prove that there was a lease in favour of the tarwad, recitals in Ext.A1 will not give title to tarwad of respondents and therefore finding of the first appellate court is unsustainable.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Nambiar - Full Document
1