Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing A. Rakkiyana Gounder vs Chinnu Goundan And Anr. on 13 March, 1953

Akula Madhava Rao And Anr. vs P. Rukmini Bai on 8 August, 1995

In Rakkiyana v. Chinnu (1 supra), the Madras High Court also held that it is open to a person to prove that he executed a sale deed benami in favour of B in order to defeat the claims of a creditor. In such a case, the question really is not one under Section 92 of the Evidence Act regarding proof of a collateral oral agreement under which B was to hold the property for the benefit of the transferor, but a case where the transferor sought to establish by attendant circumstances that he did not intend by his deed to dispose of the beneficial interest in the property to the transferee.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - K B Siddappa - Full Document

Sait Bolumal Dharmdas Firm, Bankers ... vs Gollapudi Venkatachelapathi Rao And ... on 28 January, 1959

21. Sri K.B. Krishnamurthi drew our attention to Rakkivana Gounder v. Chinnu Goundan as a case embodying the theory that the words of proviso 6 do not warrant such a restriction as was read by us into it and as contrary to that of ILR 44 Bom 710: (AIR 1920 Bom 143) and ILR 49 Bom 662: (AIR 1925 Bom 501). This argument is based on a misconception of the principle of . There, an instrument purporting to be a sale deed was executed for a stated consideration for the purpose of discharging the debts due by the transferor. After a portion of the properties, the subject matter of the document, was sold and the debts were discharged, a suit was instituted for recovery of the property left unsold on the basis that the document was in truth a trust deed. The defendant contested the claim on the defence that it was an absolute sale and that it was not open in law to the plaintiff to plead that a trust was created, as he was precluded from adducing oral evidence to contradict or vary the terms of the sale deed. The learned Judges accepted the plea of the plaintiff that he could establish by other evidence that the plaintiff had no beneficial interest in the property, taking the view that the proviso 2 to Section 92 was applicable to it. There is nothing in that report to indicate that they intended to depart from the principle adumbrated in ILR 44 Bom 710: (AIR 1920 Bom 143). On the other hand, they recognised the principle enunciated by us above. Say the learned Judges at p. 452 (of Mad LJ): (at p. 85 of AIR):
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1