Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Minor Ramachandra By Next Friend K.L. ... vs Minor Shantarama By Mother And Guardian ... on 16 October, 1940 cites

Alagappa Chettiar vs Subramania Pandia Thevar And Ors. on 31 March, 1914

13. This decision of the Privy Council does not travel beyond the particular facts of the case, and in my opinion it cannot be read as an authority for the proposition that where a mortgagee undertakes as part of the consideration for the mortgage to discharge a debt due by the mortgagor he must be deemed to have authority to make a payment of interest or a part payment of principal. I consider that the judgment of the Judicial Committee leaves entirely unaffected the decision in Alagappa Chettiar v. Subramania Pandia Thevar (1914) 26 M.L.J. 509 and the earlier decisions of this Court on the point. Whether there is authority to make a part payment is a question of fact and the decision in .each case must depend upon the particular facts. Of course, where the person who is to make the payment is left a discretion in the matter his principal will have to suffer the consequences of a payment to account, if the conditions of Section 20 for the saving of limitation are also complied with.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Govindasami Pillai vs Dasai Goundan And Anr. on 19 April, 1921

It will be observed that all that Section 20 requires is that the payment should be made by a person paying for the debtor and on. his account what he is bound to pay and not by a stranger to the debtor (see per Lord Cranworth in Chinnery v. Evans (1864) 11 H.L.C. 115 : 11 E.R. 1274) and such authority can be irrespective of the volition of the debtor (see Govindaswami Pillai v. Dasai Goundan (1921) 41 M.L.J. 423 : I.L.R. 44 Mad. 971). It is therefore difficult to see why the mortgagee whom the debtor had asked to pay off the petitioner's debt should not be considered to be duly authorised to pay interest or part of the principal of the debt.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

T.S.P.L.S. Tinnappa Chettiar, By His ... vs Putti Krishna Rao, Minor By Guardian And ... on 2 November, 1939

Of these cases only Subbakka v. Venkata Setti (1932) M.W.N. 1193 and Thinnappa Chettiar v. Krishna Rao (1940) 2 M.L.J. 726, are later than the Privy Council decision in National Bank of Upper India v. Bansidhar (1929) L.R. 57 I.A. 1 : I.L.R. 5 Luck. 1 (P.C.). No reference was, however, made to this decision in the former, and though it was noticed in passing by the learned Judges in the latter in discussing the other question whether the mortgagee in that case was a person liable to pay the debt within the meaning of Section 20, its bearing on the question of implied agency was apparently overlooked, for no reference is made to it in the discussion of .that point at pages 456 and 457 of the report.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1