Skip to content


Annathturi Iyer Vs. T. Ramanuja Chariar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.223
AppellantAnnathturi Iyer
RespondentT. Ramanuja Chariar
Excerpt:
admissibility - evidence--sale--description of house and site--oral evidence--evidence act (i of 1872), section 92. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is read along with sub-section (12) of section 19 of..........first, it is contended that parol evidence was wrongly admitted to show that the upstairs house described in exhibit or (item 2) was the house in reference to which the present dispute has arisen. it is clear from exhibit g that the intention was to convey an upstair house, and that house is described as included in, i.e., standing on a certain site which is also described and conveyed. when the document is applied to the facts existing at the date of the sale, it is found that the vendor had no upstair house on that site, but had one on the opposite side of the same street and no other in that town or elsewhere. evidence has been admitted to show that he intended to convey that house. we think the evidence was admissible and that the words in the document which indicated that.....
Judgment:

1. Two questions have been argued.

2. First, it is contended that parol evidence was wrongly admitted to show that the upstairs house described in Exhibit Or (item 2) was the house in reference to which the present dispute has arisen. It is clear from Exhibit G that the intention was to convey an upstair house, and that house is described as included in, i.e., standing on a certain site which is also described and conveyed. When the document is applied to the facts existing at the date of the sale, it is found that the vendor had no upstair house on that site, but had one on the opposite side of the same street and no other in that town or elsewhere. Evidence has been admitted to show that he intended to convey that house. We think the evidence was admissible and that the words in the document which indicated that the house sold stood upon the side described must be regarded as mere description to be omitted from consideration. The second contention is that the Tamil word ('kalan') in the covenant on which the plaintiff relies is to be interpeted as meaning any dispute about the title, and not, as the lower Courts have held, as referring to a defect in the title. On this point, we think we must accept the interpretation of the District Munsif from which the District Judge has not dissented.

3. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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