Skip to content


Sankunni Pannikar Vs. Rama Pannikar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in107Ind.Cas.429
AppellantSankunni Pannikar
RespondentRama Pannikar and ors.
Excerpt:
.....accordance with the provisions of the act and legally sustainable. however, while considering the question of validity of the action of the bank, it is not necessary for the tribunal to adjudicate the exact amount due to the secured creditors. in other words, the purpose of an application under section 17 is not the determination of the quantum of claim per se as the tribunal is concerned with the issue of the validity of the measures taken by the banks/financial institutions under section 13(4)--sections 17(4), 13(4) ; [a.p. shan c.j.,f.m.ibrahim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] appeal right of bank held, the right of the bank is not automatically suspended upon filing of an appeal by borrower under section 17 of the securitisation act and the bank as secured creditor can proceed..........1894 ex. jj. in the next para. 4 he took up the question whether chathakot is nearer than the others and finds that it is an off-shoot of parappathodi. we do not think there is any surprise to the plaintiff in recording such a finding.3. we agree with phillips, j., in accepting the finding chathakot is nearer the parappathodi and also chathakot separated last. on any view of the law, the 4th defendant's tarwad has preferential right and the suit is rightly dismissed.4. the letters patent appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of the 1st respondent.
Judgment:

1. The 4th defendant in his written statement pleaded that chathakot was a branch of Parappathodi and also pleaded that chathakot was never divided from Parappathodi. The first issue dealt with this plea of the 4th defendant and the second part of the issue raised the point whether chathakot was a portion of Parappathodi. It is true that in the issue it meant undivided portion as shown by the contract to the former part of the issue. Still it raised the question whether, divided or undivided, it was really an off-shoot of Parappathodi.

2. The Subordinate Judge found in para. 3 that all the four tarwads including chathakot are separate but he gave no date for the separation of chathakot. The earliest of the documents he refers to is dated 1894 Ex. JJ. In the next para. 4 he took up the question whether chathakot is nearer than the others and finds that it is an off-shoot of Parappathodi. We do not think there is any surprise to the plaintiff in recording such a finding.

3. We agree with Phillips, J., in accepting the finding chathakot is nearer the Parappathodi and also chathakot separated last. On any view of the law, the 4th defendant's tarwad has preferential right and the suit is rightly dismissed.

4. The Letters Patent Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of the 1st respondent.


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