Skip to content


M. Krishnamachariar Vs. T. Tiruvengada Chariar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in59Ind.Cas.275
AppellantM. Krishnamachariar
RespondentT. Tiruvengada Chariar
Cases ReferredChakrapani Nandi v. Srimati Gayamoni Dasi
Excerpt:
transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 43 - transferee not misled by representation, whether, entitled to protection--estoppel. - .....really not misled could not have, been intended to have the benefit of the provision.3. i followed pandiri bangaram v. korumoory subbaroju 8 ind. cas. 388 in hattikudur narain rao v. andar sayad abbas sahib 27 ind. cas. 785 (sitting with hancay, j.) though i felt some doubts whether such addition to the language of section 54 could be taken as having been intended by the legislature. i again followed it in eodi sankara bhatta v. moidin 49 ind. cas. 147 , sitting with oldfield, j. another division bench (bakewell and phillips, jj.) has followed pandiri bangaran v. karumoory subbaraiu 8 ind. cas. 388 in venkota lakshmi rarasayyi v. meenakshi avtmal 52 ind. cas. 992 .; see also swaminatha mudali v. saravana mudali 40 ind. cas. 581 where sitting with spencer, j., i refer at page 378 to.....
Judgment:

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The only question of law arguable in this case is whether Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act can be taken advantage of by a transferee who is not proved to have been misled by the erroneous representation of the transferor as to the latter's power to transfer.

2. It is true that the words 'and the transferee has been misled by the erroneous representation' do not occur after the word 'consideration' in Section 43. Pandiri Bangatam, v. Karumoory Suboaraju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 , however, decided that though such additional words do not occur in this section, the Legislature must have intended to benefit only transferees who have been really misled. The provision being one based on considerations which Courts of Equity, rather than Courts applying strict law, take notice of, it was evidently considered that a person who was really not misled could not have, been intended to have the benefit of the provision.

3. I followed Pandiri Bangaram v. Korumoory Subbaroju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 in Hattikudur Narain Rao v. Andar Sayad Abbas Sahib 27 Ind. Cas. 785 (sitting with Hancay, J.) though I felt some doubts whether such addition to the language of Section 54 could be taken as having been intended by the Legislature. I again followed it in Eodi Sankara Bhatta v. Moidin 49 Ind. Cas. 147 , sitting with Oldfield, J. Another Division Bench (Bakewell and Phillips, JJ.) has followed Pandiri Bangaran v. Karumoory Subbaraiu 8 Ind. Cas. 388 in Venkota Lakshmi Rarasayyi v. Meenakshi Avtmal 52 Ind. Cas. 992 .; See also Swaminatha Mudali v. Saravana Mudali 40 Ind. Cas. 581 where sitting with Spencer, J., I refer at page 378 to Pandiri Bangaram v. Karumoory Subbaraju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 , as having been followed by me with some hesitation in Hattikudur Narain Rao v. Andar Sayad Abbas Sahib 27 Ind. Cas. 785 .]

4. The Patna High Court has also followed Pandiri Bangaram v. Earumcory Subbaraju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 in Chakrapani Nandi v. Srimati Gayamoni Dasi 48 Ind. Cas. 228 .

5. There is no doubt as to the opinion of Dr. Gour doubting the correctness of Pandiri Bangaram v. Karumcory Subbaraju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 and there is an Oudh case Jag Mohan Singh v. Sita Bam Singh 39 Ind. Cas. 186 in favour of the appellant and in support of the doubts I expressed in Baitikudur Narain Rao v. Andar Sayad Abbas Sahib 27 Ind. Cas. 785 but I thick that the matter should now be deemed settled on the principle of stare decisis by the uniform desisions in this Court for the past 10 years since Pandiri Bangaram v. Karumoory Subbaraju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 was decided in March 1910.

6. I would, therefore, dismiss the second appeal with plaintiff's costs.

Spencer, J.

7. This is not a case in which the appellant can claim the benefit of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act as it has not been found as a fast that the 2nd defendant made any erroneous representation to Srinivasa Pillai who was 1st defendant's predecessor in title when he sold the suit land to him in 1896.

8. It is not necessary for the purpose of this one to import any wider expansion of the prinoiples of estoppel than those which are contained in the plain words of the section, A transfer made not in consequence of any representation of title but independently, or made with some representation which is not an erroneous one, or is erroneous and the transferee knows it to be erroneous, will not come, within the scope of the section. I consider that a correct construction was placed on this section in Pandiri Bangaram v. Karumoory Subbaraju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 , which confirmed a judgment of mine, and in Venkata Lakshmi Naratayya v. Meenakshi Ammal 52 Ind. Cas. 992 , and I should have no hesitation in following those desisions if there was any diversity of rulings, but in fact no direst authority has been quoted in support of the appellant's Vakil's argument that the effect of Section 43 has been misunderstood by the lower Appellate Court, He has only an observation in Gour's Transfer of Property Act, Note 720 at page 446, and a decision of the Oudh Court in Jag Mohan Singh v. Sita Bam Singh 39 Ind. Cas. 186 in his favour. The decision in Chakrapani Nandi v. Srimati Gayamoni Dasi 48 Ind. Cas. 228 is also against his contentions.

9. I agree that the second appeal should be dismissed with costs.


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