Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)
Bibhu Bhusan Dutta And Ors. vs Anadi Nath Dutt And Ors. on 23 August, 1933 cites

Kishtappa Chetty vs Lakshmi Ammal on 11 January, 1923

20. The true nature of the transaction in the present case, in our opinion, was that the G. P. notes were to remain intact with the Burdwan Raj, and remain there as property which Gobendra had put in as security for his service. As between Devendra and Gobendra and at the point of time when the partition took_ place, and which is the point of time with which we are concerned, the understanding was, not that Gobendra would be defalcating or incurring liabilities in other ways, a supposition which cannot be made in the absence of any evidence to that effect, but that on the termination of his service they or their substitute would come back intact to Debendra. The parties noted down in the Toke, papers Exs. 7 and 7-a, that the G. P. notes were in deposit in the Rajbati and at the same time Debendra gave a receipt acknowledging that he had received them. This fiction of taking and giving again was resorted to, to make the transaction complete as a deposit with Gobendra. To whatever form of bailment this transaction might correspond it was a transaction which, in the absence of a definition of deposit or depositary in the Limitation Act, must be judged by the ordinary dictionary meaning of these words. We entirely agree in the observations of Schwabe, C.J. in the case of Kishtappa Chetty v. Lakshmi Ammal AIR 1923 Mad 578 as to the meaning of this article. He said:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs Balusami Ayyar on 5 July, 1921

9. The expression "has become vested in trust" has received interpretations from the Courts which are not quite uniform. For our present purpose it is not necessary to discuss this conflict. The word "vesting" implies property in the subject matter, and that it is contrary to the ordinary accepted meaning of the term "vesting" to say that property is vested in persons by reason merely of their having control over it. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Vidya Varuthi v. Balusami AIR 1922 PC 123 at p. 315 of 48 IA observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 149 - Full Document
1   2 Next