Indira Devi vs Veena Gupta on 4 July, 2023
‘The Privy Council in Sakalaguna
Nayudu v. Chinna Munuswami
Nayakar [Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (2.23 seconds)Documents citing
Sakalaguna Nayudu vs Chinna Munuswami Nayakar on 24 April, 1928
Jayeshkumar Mathurbai Patel vs Mukeshbhai Vershibhai Desai on 27 April, 2022
It is further observed that, "In my view, the reasoning
of the learned Judges in Vitkoba Madhav v. Madhav Damadar
cannot be supported on principle, and I think also that it is
inconsistent with the decision of the Privy Council in
Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna Munuswami Nayakar. In that
case the property in suit was a village, and on the sale of the
village an option had been given to the vendor to repurchase
Page 37 of 74
Downloaded on : Wed Apr 27 21:22:07 IST 2022
C/AO/130/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2022
within a period of thirty years. The option had been assigned
to the plaintiff, and the Privy Council, confirming the decision
of the High Court of Madras, held that the option was
assignable".
M.Sathishkumar vs R.Veeran (Died) on 10 April, 2026
The statement of law which got imprimatur of
this Court in para 9 of the Report runs as follows: (SCC p. 745)
“The Privy Council in Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna
Munnuswami Nayakar [AIR 1928 PC 174 : 55 IA 243 : 32
CWN 850] has held that the benefit of a contract of
repurchase which did not show that it was intended only for
the benefit of the parties contracting, could be assigned and
such contract is enforceable.
Gomi Bai And Ors. vs Uma Rastogi And Anr. on 29 December, 2004
In Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna Munuswami Nayakar the facts are these. One Venkata Subrahmanya Ayyar on his behalf and on behalf of minor son sold Siyatti Village to Venkatapathi Naidu (father of defendants) for sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. On the same day parties executed "counterpart agreement" by which it was provided that Venkatapathi should re-convey the village to the vendor after thirty years in case vendor wished to have the village again upon paying sale consideration. Subsequently, the vendor was declared insolvent who died leaving his minor son Krishnasami. By a deed dated 12.5.1910 Krishnasami sold the village to the plaintiff. The said deed contain not only conveyance, but assignment of Krishnasami's right to the benefit of counterpart agreement. In the insolvency proceedings, the Official Assignee of Madras as assignee or estate of Venkata Subrahmanya Ayyar conveyed the right, title and interest of the insolvent in the house and the village to Krishnasami. The plaintiff as assignee of Krishnasami filed the suit to obtain a direction from the Court to the defendants to execute a conveyance of the property in favour of the plaintiff. The Judicial Committee considered whether the benefit of contract had been effectually assigned to the plaintiff. As a question of fact it was found that the benefit of the contract had become vested in the plaintiff before institution of the suit and therefore he was entitled to call upon the defendants, the sons and heirs of Venkatapati for conveyance of the property. The Privy Council also came to the conclusion that counterpart was complete contract in itself and that it must be deemed as executed in favour of both father and son and that the benefit of the contract should be assigned.
Habiba Khatoon vs Ubaidul Huq & Ors on 5 August, 1997
"The Privy Council in
Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna
Munuswami Naykar AIR 1928 PC 174
has held that the benefit of a
contract of repurchase which did
not show that it was intended only
for the benefit of the parties
contracting, could be assigned and
such contract is enforceable.
Kavi Eswari vs Munikrishnan
The
statement of law which got imprimatur of this Court in
para 9 of the Report runs as follows: (SCC p. 745)
‘The Privy Council in Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna
Munuswami Nayakar [Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna
Munuswami Nayakar, AIR 1928 PC 174 : 55 IA 243 : 32
CWN 850] has held that the benefit of a contract of
repurchase which did not show that it was intended only
for the benefit of the parties contracting, could be
assigned and such contract is enforceable.
Kavi Eswari vs Munikrishnan
The
statement of law which got imprimatur of this Court in
para 9 of the Report runs as follows: (SCC p. 745)
‘The Privy Council in Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna
Munuswami Nayakar [Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna
Munuswami Nayakar, AIR 1928 PC 174 : 55 IA 243 : 32
CWN 850] has held that the benefit of a contract of
repurchase which did not show that it was intended only
for the benefit of the parties contracting, could be
assigned and such contract is enforceable.
C. K. Ravi Kumar vs John Franklin on 23 July, 2025
In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
approved the views of the Privy Council in Sakalaguna Nayudu and
Another v. Chinna Munuswami Nayakar [AIR 1928 PC 174], the Bombay
High Court in Vishweshwar Narsabhatta Gaddada v. Durgappa Irappa
Bhatkar and Another [AIR 1940 Bom 339] and the Madras High Court
in Sinnakaruppa Gounder v. M. Karuppuswami Gounder and Another
[AIR 1965 Mad 506] that the benefit of a contract of repurchase
would prima facie be assignable.
P.C. Gulati vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, New ... on 17 April, 1972
Therefore, all the elements necessary for a contract were present, and the sale in pursuance thereof was not a compulsory purchase or acquisition (See Sakalaguna Nayudu V. Chinna Manaswami Nayakar A. 1. R. (1928) P. C. 174). (3).
Harkisandas Bhagwandas vs Bai Dhanoo on 8 September, 1933
8. In support of the first contention, it was argued that it was not denied that plaintiff No. 2 could claim reconveyance of the house and that, as a consequence, plaintiff No. 1 could claim the same relief as he was the assignee from plaintiff No. 2 and in that capacity was a representative of the latter within the meaning of Section 23(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The contention was further strengthened by citing a recent decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna Munuswami Nayakar (1928) L.R. 55 I.A. 243 S.C. : 30 Bom.