Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Maddula Kasi Viswanadham vs Chalasani Radhakrishnarao on 20 April, 1972 cites

Jibhaoo Harisingh Rajput vs Ajab Singh Fakira Rajput on 22 February, 1952

On the basis of these decisions it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant defendant, that the defendant who has parted with the sum of Rs.8,000/- under an agreement of sale, has also a saleable interest and for this contention, the counsel relies on the decision in Jibhaoo v. Ajab Singh, , In the decision the question rested on the interpretation of Section 24 (1) of the Bombay Agriculturists Debtors' Relief Act, and the remarks relating to the charge created under Section 55 (6) 9b) of the Transfer of Property Act made therein do not apply to the facts of this case. Under Section 55 (6) (b) of the T.P. Act, a buyer is entitled to a charge only if he had not improperly declined to accept delivery of the property. There is no evidence in this case now as to what had happened with regard to the transactions under the agreement of sale. Moreover, in the suit the Court had found that the agreement has not been established. Therefore the defendant cannot claim to be a holder of a charge on the land for a part of the purchase money paid by him and therefore he has a saleable interest in the land. This objection is therefore over ruled.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sv. L. Sv. Sevugan Chettiar vs Chinnasami Reddiar And Anr. on 1 November, 1949

9. The next contention raised is that he is not liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs.1,100/- which was found due as there was no undertaking to pay interest and as the promissory note included the interest payable on that sum towards principal it would amount to his paying interest on interest. Even under the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, it must be shown that the interest is excessive and the transaction was substantially unfair. This is not established. As per the proviso to Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act (as added by Madras Act VIII of 1937) to have the benefit of that provisions it must be shown that his is an agriculturist in the ordinary sense though he need not be shown to be an agriculturist under Act IV of 1938. (Vide Sevugan Chettiar v. Chinnasami, ) As has been held already it is not established that the defendant is an agriculturist even in the ordinary sense. However, he had himself voluntarily executed a promissory note, which included the principal of Rs.1,100/- and also interest thereon that had accumulated upto that date and it is not open to him now to contend that the amount for which the promissory note was executed is not payable as it is a negotiable instrument and any holder in due course is entitled to claim interest on the amount stated in the promissory note. This objection is also overruled. The suit has therefore rightly been decreed by the Subordinate Judge.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1