Skip to content


Deenabandu Choudari Vs. Vinayaka Doss and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.174
AppellantDeenabandu Choudari
RespondentVinayaka Doss and anr.
Excerpt:
attestation - estoppel--attestation, whether amounts to a guarantee of title in the vendor. - .....5 to the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff had no interest in the property at all. the district munsif relies on the facts that the plaintiff after this mortgage bought a portion of the mortgaged land from 1st defendant and that for some time the plaintiff and defendants nos. 2 to 5 have been on bad terms together, with the fact that the plaintiff attested the sale-deed executed by defendants nos. 3 to 5, as creating an estoppel against the plaintiff. but these facts, in my opinion, are no evidence of any representation having been made by the plaintiff in 1893 to the 2nd defeudant that defendants nos. 3 to 5 had a good, title to convey to the 2nd defendant. the appeal must be allowed and there must be the usual mortgage decree. the plaintiff will have costs throughout.
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. The judgment of the lower appellate Court, which confirms the judgment of the District Munsif, cannot be supported. The mere attestation of a deed of sale executed by a person does not in law amount to a representation by the at testator that the vendor has a good title to the property. In this case the 2nd defendant obtained a conveyance of certain property from defendants Nos. 3 to 5 and this document was attested by the plaintiff. In 1903 the plaintiff obtained a mortgage of the same property from the 1st defendant and it is found that the 1st defendant is the owner of the property and not defendants Nos. 3 to 5. At the time of the sale by defendant Nos. 3 to 5 to the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff had no interest in the property at all. The District Munsif relies on the facts that the plaintiff after this mortgage bought a portion of the mortgaged land from 1st defendant and that for some time the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 have been on bad terms together, with the fact that the plaintiff attested the sale-deed executed by defendants Nos. 3 to 5, as creating an estoppel against the plaintiff. But these facts, in my opinion, are no evidence of any representation having been made by the plaintiff in 1893 to the 2nd defeudant that defendants Nos. 3 to 5 had a good, title to convey to the 2nd defendant. The appeal must be allowed and there must be the usual mortgage decree. The plaintiff will have costs throughout.


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