Skip to content


Pitta Ramaswamiah Vs. Subramania Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in79Ind.Cas.443
AppellantPitta Ramaswamiah
RespondentSubramania Aiyar
Cases ReferredDuraiyya Solagyan v. Venkatrama Naiker
Excerpt:
provincial insolvency act (iii of 1907), section 36 - limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i. article 187--application by official receiver to set aside alienation by insolvent--limitation. - - the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs to include only one vakil's fee......of the amount secured by that document, as a simple debt.2. the first suggestion is that the official receiver's petition was out of time with reference to article 181, schedule i of the limitation act. a similar contention was rejected in duraiyya solagyan v. venkatrama naiker 60 ind. cas. 123 : 12 l.w. 535, a decision with which we entirely agree. next, it is said that the burden of proof should have been placed on the official receiver. but, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the interval between the insolvency petition and ex. i, was less than two years, it was for the alienee to prove his case.3. the lower court has dealt fully with the merits. we need add only that the alienee did not give evidence. the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs to.....
Judgment:

1. These appeals are argued on the ground that the lower Court should either have set aside the mortgage Ex. I or should at least have allowed the proof o the present appellant, the alienee, in respect of the amount secured by that document, as a simple debt.

2. The first suggestion is that the Official Receiver's petition was out of time with reference to Article 181, Schedule I of the Limitation Act. A similar contention was rejected in Duraiyya Solagyan v. Venkatrama Naiker 60 Ind. Cas. 123 : 12 L.W. 535, a decision with which we entirely agree. Next, it is said that the burden of proof should have been placed on the Official Receiver. But, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the interval between the insolvency petition and Ex. I, was less than two years, it was for the alienee to prove his case.

3. The lower Court has dealt fully with the merits. We need add only that the alienee did not give evidence. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs to include only one Vakil's fee.


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