Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Minor Palanivelu And 2 Others vs Sadasiva Padayachi (Died) And 7 Others on 4 February, 2000

Mr.N.Ramanujam vs Mrs.S.Thillai on 13 January, 2015

23. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff also relied on a judgment of this court in Minor Palanivelu and 2 others vs. Sadasiva Padayachi (Died) and 7 others reported in 2000 (2) CTC 486. The facts of the said case are different from the facts of the case on hand. The learned counsel for the appellant has miserably failed to point out the ratio decided therein, which is sought to be made applicable to the case on hand. However, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the respondents 1 and 2 claimed that the debt was incurred for payment of the sale consideration for the purchase made by the wife of the appellant in a public auction conducted by Park Town Benefit Fund Ltd, she should have been made a party and that if at all the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 had any remedy, the same shall be against the wife of the appellant/plaintiff and against the property purchased by her in the public auction held on 20.06.2000. This court is not in a position to countenance the above said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. When an amount was borrowed by a person for giving it to another person for the purpose of purchasing a property, the creditor shall not have any right in the property thus purchased unless subsequent to such purchase a mortgage in respect of such is created in his favour. On the other hand, when one property is mortgaged for raising funds for purchasing another property, the mortgagor cannot later on contend that the mortgagee cannot proceed against the property mortgaged and that he has to proceed against the property purchased out of the amount borrowed under the mortgage deed. As the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is the same as indicated above, it cannot be countenanced. There is no statutory provision or any other principle of law supporting the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The courts below have not offended the principles of law regarding the burden of proof and they have rendered a correct and concurrent finding that the appellant/plaintiff had not proved his entitlement to get the relief of injunction sought for. The question framed as second substantial question of law is answered accordingly against the appellant/plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P R Shivakumar - Full Document

Asmath Kathu vs Lal Khan on 10 September, 2008

36. Regarding the principle of non est factum, the learned counsel for the plaintiff also cited one other decision of this Court reported in 2000(II) CTC 486-Minor Palanivelu and 2 others vs. Sadasiva Padayachi(died) and 7 others, which is relied on by D2 also and there is no quarrel over the proposition of law, but that concept cannot be pressed into service, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Morris Raj vs Reetha Mary on 15 March, 2021

24.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1998-1-L.W-550 (Subramaniyam and five others Vs. Sadaya Padayachi and five others) especially paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 and contended that when there is an excessive execution, the sale is void and the period of limitation prescribed for filing under Order 21 Rule 90 of C.P.C would not take away the powers of the Court in setting aside the sale.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karuppayee vs Pichai Udayar on 1 March, 2019

8.Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would contend that after the death of the father of the plaintiffs the suit properties devolved upon the plaintiffs and the second defendant and that the second defendant sold the suit properties to the 1st defendant vide a sale deed dated 18.02.1998 (Ex.A1), without obtaining prior permission of the Court and without any legal necessity. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 8 (2), 8(3) and 8(A) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and contended that the sale deed (Ex.A1) is void and illegal. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Minor Palanivelu and two others versus Sadasiva Padayachi (died) and seven others reported in 2000(II) CTC 486 and contended that the principles relating to non-est factum is applicable to an illiterate woman and that the burden is on the persons who wants to establish validity of documents as per Section 101 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Hemalatha - Full Document

Vanajakshi Ammal vs Raniammal on 18 March, 2003

18. As a matter of fact, the trial Judge found that the plaintiff's husband was present in the Court throughout the proceedings and probably, at the instance of the plaintiff's husband, the suit had been instituted. We are of the view, on the evidence on record, the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Chidambaram Pillai's case (1993-1-L.W.466) and other decisions in Thirumalai Vadivu ammal's case (1999-2-L.W.459) and Minor Palanivelu's case (2000(II) CTC 486) are not applicable. We hold that there is no evidence at all for the learned Single Judge to hold that the defendants are having lands in the same village and they are influential people, having large following. It is also relevant to notice that the case of the plaintiff is that the second defendant has played fraud on the plaintiff to execute the document and tempted her husband to attest the document without informing the contents of the document. There is no plea of any undue influence exercised by the defendants over the plaintiff, nor is there any evidence to that effect. Accordingly, we hold that the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that the defendants were in dominating position and taking advantage of the plaintiff's position, the defendants obtained from the plaintiff the deed in question without explaining the nature of the deed. We find that there is no evidence for such a conclusion to be arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we are unable to sustain the reasonings and the conclusion of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R J Babu - Full Document
1