Skip to content


Phakiru Panigrahi Vs. Kothapalli Chendrasekharam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad215
AppellantPhakiru Panigrahi
RespondentKothapalli Chendrasekharam
Cases Referred and Sanmukh Pande v. Jaganath Pande A. I. R.
Excerpt:
- - 895 is good and binding on the minor. 708 these cases appear to me in the light of the madras decisions to be a little difficult to follow, and if i am bound by a decision in a matter of this sort i am clearly bound by the decisions of the benches of this court......of the consideration of rs. 1,185, rs. 895 is good and binding on the minor. i cannot find in the subordinate judge's judgment whether he was specifically asked to exercise his discretion in favour of upholding the sale, but the learned counsel for the respondent has taken no objection on that ground before me.2. the current of madras decisions, five or six in number of which the following are illustrations: thalagara ramanne v. kalagare gangayya [1915] 27 m. l. j. 132 kannan chetty v. amrithammal [1914] 1 l. w. 877 rukmani sundarammal v. muthu ammal [1915] m. w. n. 8 seshamma v. venkatrayaringaru [1916] 3 l. w. 413 and krishnan v. govindan : (1921)41mlj381 seems in favour of the appellant's contention that where a substantial amount or the major portion of the consideration has been.....
Judgment:

Odgers, J.

1. The sole question in this case is whether the appellant should be allowed to keep the lands he has purchased on payment of the difference between the amount of consideration held to be binding and the amount of the purchase money. The suit was by a minor after attainment of his majority to set aside the sale by his mother and guardian. The lower appellate Court has found that out of the consideration of Rs. 1,185, Rs. 895 is good and binding on the minor. I cannot find in the Subordinate Judge's judgment whether he was specifically asked to exercise his discretion in favour of upholding the sale, but the learned counsel for the respondent has taken no objection on that ground before me.

2. The current of Madras decisions, five or six in number of which the following are illustrations: Thalagara Ramanne v. Kalagare Gangayya [1915] 27 M. L. J. 132 Kannan Chetty v. Amrithammal [1914] 1 L. W. 877 Rukmani Sundarammal v. Muthu Ammal [1915] M. W. N. 8 Seshamma v. Venkatrayaringaru [1916] 3 L. W. 413 and Krishnan v. Govindan : (1921)41MLJ381 seems in favour of the appellant's contention that where a substantial amount or the major portion of the consideration has been found to be for necessary purposes the rule is to uphold the sale. In this case three-quarters has been so found. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent are four in Allahabad, namely Banwari Lal v. Mahesh [1919] 41 All. 63 Jai Narain Pande v. Bhagwan Pande A. I. R. 1922 All. 321 Dwarka Ram v. Jhulai Pande A. I. R. 1923 All. 248 and Sanmukh Pande v. Jaganath Pande A. I. R. 1924 All. 708 These cases appear to me in the light of the Madras decisions to be a little difficult to follow, and if I am bound by a decision in a matter of this sort I am clearly bound by the decisions of the Benches of this Court. My own inclination is entirely the same way. I have more than once said that to disturb a bona fide purchaser who has reason to belive after a lapse of considerable time that his title is secure is to my mind, a serious menace to the peace of people's minds. This is the only point argued and I think on a consideration of the cases and for the reasons that I have mentioned above, this appeal should be allowed with costs. The balance of consideration namely Rs. 290, must of course be paid by the purchaser. The order of the Subordinate Judge as to the payment of the balance with interest from the date of suit up to the date of payment is confirmed.


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