Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.75 seconds)Assam Money Lenders Rules
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Dubash D.K. Ahmad Ibrahim Sahib vs A.K.R.M.K. Meyyappa Chettiar And Ors. on 13 September, 1938
To these we may add the decision reported in Dubash D. K. Ahmad Ibrahim Sahib v. Meyyappa Chettiar, AIR 1940 Mad 285. It is seen from these decisions that the party pleading un-due influence will have to establish that the op-posite party had an influence over Mm either be- cause of the close relationship existing or due to other circumstances and by exercising that influence he took unfair advantage at his cost. Once these factors are established then it is for the other side to establish the validity of the trans- action. In deciding the question of undue influence. as in most other matters, an overall view of the case will have to be taken.
Raghunath Prasad vs Sarju Prasad on 18 December, 1923
Similarly reliance is placed on the decisions reported in B. S. Lyle Ltd. v. Chappell, 1932-I KB 691; Chethambaram Chettiar v. Loo Than Poo, AIR 1940 PC 60; Lal Singh v. Ramnarain Ram, AIR 1942 Pat 138; Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad, AIR 1924 PC 60.
Kusum Kumari vs Debi Prasad Dhandania on 28 November, 1935
It is true that by incorporating the amended Rule 11 to Order 34, C. P. C., the law as regards the awarding of interest subsequent to the institution of the suit in respect of mortgage suits has been brought in line with the provision contained in Section 34, C. P. C. By this amendment, the legislature has set at rest the prevailing conflict of judicial opinion on the relative scope of Section 34 vis-a-vis with that of Order 34, IV 11, C. P. C.
But there is nothing in this rule which affords any assistance to the argument that the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee comes to an end on the institution of the suit. That relationship continues to exist till the date fixed for redemption as could be seen from Order 34, Rules 2 and 4, C.P.C. In support of this conclusion reliance can be placed on the decision of the Privy Council reported in Kusum Kumari v. Debi Prosad, AIR 1936 PC 63.
Section 10 in The Orissa Money-lenders' Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
The Orissa Money-lenders' Act, 1939
Section 2 in The Usurious Loans Act, 1918 [Entire Act]
T.A. Meenakshi Sundarammal And Anr. vs K. Subramania Ayyar And Ors. on 27 November, 1953
4. Sri T. M. Krishnaswamy Iyer, the learned Counsel for the contesting defendants has invited our attention to a large number of decisions to ascertain the true scope of the plea of undue influence. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in Permanent it Trustee Co., New South-Wales Ltd. v. Francis Henry Bridgewater, AIR 1937 PC 14; Sundarammal v. Subramania Chet-tiar, 29 Mad LJ 236: (AIR 191C Mad 278), Sami Sah v. Parthasarathy Chetty, 31 Ind Gas 739: (AIR 1916 Mad 862), Singar Kunwar v. Basdeo Prasad, AIR 1930 All 568; Palanivelu Mudaliar v. Neelavathi Ammal, AIR 1937 PC 50; and Rama Patter and Bros. v. Manikkam, ILR 58 Mad 454: (AIR 1935 Mad 726).