Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 140 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The State Bank Of India Act, 1955
Veerammal And Anr. vs Kr. L. Lakshmanan Chettiar And Anr. on 20 November, 1959
35. This argument has to be rejected outright and accordingly we reject the said argument. We also do not accept the conclusion of the trial court that the eighth defendant was not a guarantor, merely because he was not the actual mortgagor. The interpretation placed by the trial court on the definition of the word equitable mortgage does not in any way go to support the plea that the eighth defendant did not deposit the title deeds by way of equitable mortgage. The trial judge correctly relies on and refers to the judgment of this court in Veerammal v. KR. L. Lakshmanan Chettiar and the decision of the Supreme Court in Nathan (K.J.) v. Maruthi Rao (S.V.), to find out the necessary requisites for proving a mortgage. But the trial judge has failed to note that all the requisites are satisfied in this case and it fell into an error by saying that the eighth defendant by himself did not owe any money to the bank. That was not necessary for creating a mortgage by deposit of title deeds, in respect of a debt due by another person for whom the mortgagor stood as surety or guarantor. The evidence in this case is overwhelming to prove that the eighth defendant in fact stood as a guarantor to the tune of Rs. 5,25,000 and also deposited his title deeds in respect of D schedule properties as and by way of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The finding to the contrary by the trial judge is set aside.
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 133 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Chandradhar Goswami & Ors vs The Gauhati Bank Ltd on 14 October, 1966
37. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the above two provisions in Chandradhar Goswami v. Gauhati Bank Ltd. [1967] 37 Comp Cas 108. Observed by the Supreme Court (page 112) :
Union Of India vs Bank Of India And Ors. on 8 February, 1980
39. Reliance was also placed on Union of India v. Bank of India : Bank of India v. Matha Gowder (H.J.) [1981] 94 LW 451. The last mentioned case has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. In that case, it was held that the vagueness as to period of forbearance in suing, and granting time as long as the bank thinks fit would render the agreement void as not supported by proper consideration. Apparently at a later stage when the first defendant firm fell apart and ran into difficulties, the fifth and eighth defendants sought to wriggle out of these liabilities. We have absolutely no hesitation in holding that exhibit A-6 accounts are true, valid and prove the suit claim.
1