Skip to content


Thalagara Ramanne and ors. Vs. Kalagare Gangayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1914)27MLJ132
AppellantThalagara Ramanne and ors.
RespondentKalagare Gangayya and ors.
Cases ReferredFelaram Roy v. Bagalanand Banerjee
Excerpt:
- .....balance of rs. 278, there was no justification for obtaining that money by sale of the land. the district judge also finds that both sales were bona fide transactions and that the prices paid were not unreasonably low. these findings we accept but we do not think they justify the decree which the district judge has made.2. the sale exhibit iv for rs. 700 is clearly wholly good as found by the district judge and the reversioners have no claim to recover the property. the only ground suggested in support of the decree is inadequacy of price but the district judge's finding is that the price was not unreasonable.3. as regards the sale for rs. 600, the sum of rs. 322 is binding, so to phrase it, on the reversion and rs. 278 is not binding; but the sale was bona fide and the purchaser is,.....
Judgment:

1. The District Judge finds that out of the sum of Rs. 1300 the price paid for the property, Rs. 1022 was to pay off a debt or debts which the widow was legally justified in paying out of the corpus of his son's estate, and that as regards the balance of Rs. 278, there was no justification for obtaining that money by sale of the land. The District Judge also finds that both sales were bona fide transactions and that the prices paid were not unreasonably low. These findings we accept but we do not think they justify the decree which the District Judge has made.

2. The sale Exhibit IV for Rs. 700 is clearly wholly good as found by the District Judge and the reversioners have no claim to recover the property. The only ground suggested in support of the decree is inadequacy of price but the District Judge's finding is that the price was not unreasonable.

3. As regards the sale for Rs. 600, the sum of Rs. 322 is binding, so to phrase it, on the reversion and Rs. 278 is not binding; but the sale was bona fide and the purchaser is, we think, entitled to retain the land.

4. We accept the view taken of this question in Felaram Roy v. Bagalanand Banerjee (1910) 14 C.W.N. 895 and think that the right decree as regards the second sale will be one which permits the purchaser to retain the land; we need not consider the question whether the reversioners have a right to recover the sum of Rs. 278 because that question was not argued and it was stated by Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar if we accept the District Judge's finding his clients were willing to pay that amount to retain the land.

5. We leave that question open for further consideration should it arise.

6. The decree will, therefore, be that the suit be dismissed with costs throughout as against defendants Nos. 1 to 14 and 17 and 18 and that if the 15th defendant do not within 3 months pay the amount of Rs. 278 with interest at 6 P.C. per annum from the date of the death of the widow, i.e., on 24--1--00, the plaintiff be at liberty to sell the property covered by Exhibit III for, the amount but if the payment is made within 3 months the plaintiffs suit will stand dismissed against the 15th and 16th defendants also. The 15th defendant will pay his own costs but not the plaintiffs. The memorandum of objections is dismissed with costs.


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