Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Raja Rajeswara Dorai Alias Muthu ... vs A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachellam Chettiar ... on 3 March, 1913

Palaniappa Goundan vs Nallappa Goundan And Ors. on 16 March, 1950

A judicial rescission may be necessary as held in cases decided under Article 91, Limitation Act, (see 'Janaki Kunwar v. Ajit Singh', 15 Cal 58 : (14 IA 148 PC); 'Raja Rajeswara Dorai v. Arunachalam Chettiar', 38 Mad 321 : (AIR (3) 1916 Mad 350) ; & 'Someswar Dutt v. Tribhavan Dutt', 67 MLJ 7: (AIR (21) 1934 PC 130). I have already referred to the decisions of the Ct. taking the same view of the effect of Article 44, Limitation Act.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

The Honourable B. Rajarajeswara ... vs Kuppuswami Aiyar And Ors. on 30 May, 1921

15. It was argued by Mr. Section Srinivasa Aiyangar that the cause of action arises only when the undue influence ceases. I considered this question in a case brought by the present plaintiff himself. Raja Rajeswara Dorai v. Arunachalam Chettiar (1913) I.L.R. 321: 24 M.L.J. 592 and expressed the opinion that the cessation of undue influencehas no relevancy on the question of limitation unless of cqurse, it could be brought under the heading of fraud so as to attract the operation of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Peram Chennamma vs Peram Mangamma And Ors. on 22 October, 1934

Raja Rajeswara Dorai v. Arunachellam Chettiar 1916 Mad. 350 is also said to be against the appellant. It is a decision of this High Court. It was an action for the recovery of possession of property which the plaintiff claimed and which had been leased by the plaintiff's father under two registered lease deeds to the deceased father of the defendants. The claim was that the leases were obtained by undue influence exercised by the father of the defendants on the plaintiff's father. The father of defendants had died in 1899. It was held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 91, Lim. Act. There again it was fundamental to the plaintiff's claim, before he could obtain possession, to set aside the document there, on the ground of undue influence. In other words the document there was voidable. The remedy sought was its-avoidance and it was therefore necessary to allege it in the plaint in order to have it set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Malaimel Thiruvenkatachariar And Anr. vs Pari Seshadri Iyengar And Ors. on 13 March, 1916

The various provisions in chapter 9 of the Trusts Act were discussed at length in Raja Rajeswari Dorai v. Arunachallam Chettiar (1913) I.L.R. 38 M. 32 at 337 where also the same principle was laid down, though Sadasiva Iyer, J. was inclined to doubt the correctness of the decision in Lakshmi Doss v. Roop Laul (1906) I.L.R. 30 M. 169. These were however cases where the defendant in possession was the original owner who had conveyed the property to the plaintiff under circumstances which entitled him to rescind, and in which he defended his possession on his original title which did not pass absolutely to the plaintiff. In cases, however, where the.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ajay Narain vs Aarti Singh & Ors. on 2 December, 2024

144. To evaluate the validity of a unilateral rescission of a contract, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Raja Rajeswara Dorai alias Muthu v. A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachellan Chettiar, 1913 SCC OnLine Mad 276 where it was observed that a unilateral expression of rescission of a contract by one of the parties to the contact cannot be held to relieve him from his obligation to have the contract rescinded by Court under the substantive law and within the time allowed by statutory law if he wants as a plaintiff the assistance of the Court in obtaining certain reliefs on the basis that the contract has ceased to exist. It was observed that repudiation of a contract by one party alone cannot get the party any relief except as consequent of getting a declaration and a rescission by the Court. Thus, a contract can be properly rescinded without the intervention of a Court only by the act of both parties or if the original contract or Deed itself Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 1336/1998 & CS(OS) 2273/2000 Page 42 of 50 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:04.12.2024 15:38:56 by Clauses of forfeiture or similar clauses, puts an end to the contract or transaction. However, even the latter case has to be determined by both the parties and only then the aid of the Court is not required. Therefore, even though a contract or transaction may be voidable at the instance of one party, its rescission is effectuated not by the mere repudiation of one party, but by the decree of Declaration of this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Palaniandi Chetty And Ors. vs M.V. Appavu Chettiar And Ors. on 5 October, 1917

10. The next question is whether the judgment-creditor can protect his rights to proceed against the property of the judgment-debtor by pleading in defence that the sale which the plaintiff seeks to-establish in the suit should be set aside. There is no question that if the sale is void or is found to be a sham transaction, it will not be necessary either for the creditor individually or conjointly with others, to sue to set aside the sale. But if it is only voidable it seems to me that the creditors can have no remedy against the property conveyed until the sale is sea aside. It is well settled that in cases of voidable transactions until the transaction is avoided it continues in force. See Rajeswara Dorai v. Arunachllam Chettiar 25 B. 827 : 3 Bom.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Aarti Singh vs Ajay Narain on 2 December, 2024

144. To evaluate the validity of a unilateral rescission of a contract, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Raja Rajeswara Dorai alias Muthu v. A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachellan Chettiar, 1913 SCC OnLine Mad 276 where it was observed that a unilateral expression of rescission of a contract by one of the parties to the contact cannot be held to relieve him from his obligation to have the contract rescinded by Court under the substantive law and within the time allowed by statutory law if he wants as a plaintiff the assistance of the Court in obtaining certain reliefs on the basis that the contract has ceased to exist. It was observed that repudiation of a contract by one party alone cannot get the party any relief except as consequent of getting a declaration and a rescission by the Court. Thus, a contract can be properly rescinded without the intervention of a Court only by the act of both parties or if the original contract or Deed itself Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 1336/1998 & CS(OS) 2273/2000 Page 42 of 50 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:04.12.2024 15:38:56 by Clauses of forfeiture or similar clauses, puts an end to the contract or transaction. However, even the latter case has to be determined by both the parties and only then the aid of the Court is not required. Therefore, even though a contract or transaction may be voidable at the instance of one party, its rescission is effectuated not by the mere repudiation of one party, but by the decree of Declaration of this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document
1   2 Next