Skip to content


Krishnan Nambudri Vs. Raman Menon and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad484
AppellantKrishnan Nambudri
RespondentRaman Menon and ors.
Excerpt:
registration act - act iii of 1877, section 17 (c)--agreement to reneiv a kanom and to credit as renewal fees a sum of money then due by plaintiff to defendant--want of registration--admissibility in evidence. - - if the appellant's present contention were well founded, it would probably have been raised in the courts below, but we find that it was not, in fact, raised in either court......of an interest within the meaning of section 17 (c) of the registration act. it evidences an agreement to renew and to credit as renewal fees a sum of money which had become due by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time the document was executed. the promise so to credit the money was not in our opinion, an acknowledgment such as is contemplated by the section.2. even if it were such an acknowledgment, the document would still be admissible as evidence of the agreement to renew, a part of the document which in our opinion is severable from the part which is alleged to amount to an acknowledgment.3. it is further argued that even if there was an agreement to renew it was not valid, because the amount of the renewal fees was not fixed.4. as to this, we observe that, though the.....
Judgment:

1. We are unable to agree with the appellant's contention that Exhibit II is not admissible in evidence for want of registration. We do not think that it contains an acknowledgment of money paid for the creation of an interest within the meaning of Section 17 (c) of the Registration Act. It evidences an agreement to renew and to credit as renewal fees a sum of money which had become due by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time the document was executed. The promise so to credit the money was not in our opinion, an acknowledgment such as is contemplated by the Section.

2. Even if it were such an acknowledgment, the document would still be admissible as evidence of the agreement to renew, a part of the document which in our opinion is severable from the part which is alleged to amount to an acknowledgment.

3. It is further argued that even if there was an agreement to renew it was not valid, because the amount of the renewal fees was not fixed.

4. As to this, we observe that, though the language of the instrument is not very clear, we are unable to say that it is inconsistent with the contention that the renewal fee was to be the sum stated in the document, viz., Rs. 125 with interest. If the appellant's present contention were well founded, it would probably have been raised in the Courts below, but we find that it was not, in fact, raised in either Court.

5. The second appeal therefore fails and we dismiss it with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //