SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(AP) 189

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.SESHACHALAPATI, MANOHAR PERSHAD
Sri Raja Kakarlapudi Venkata Sudarsana Sundara Narasayyamma Garu - Appellant
Versus
Andhra Bank Ltd., Vijayawada - Respondent
Decided On : 10-17-59

The waiver of notice in a pledge agreement is not valid as it is inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act.

Headnote:

SALE OF PLEDGED SHARES - NOTICE - WAIVER - MANDATORY PROVISION - PUBLIC POLICY - SUIT BY HEIR WITHOUT PROBATE - INCOMPETENT - RELIEF FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION - NOT MAINTAINABLE.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, the widow of the deceased, filed a suit for a declaration that the sale of 9,100 B-Class shares of the Andhra Cement Company Ltd., Vijayawada, by the Andhra Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, to the Jaipur Sugar Company Ltd., Rayagaddah, is contrary to law, void and did not affect her right to redeem the pledge effected by her husband in favour of the 1st defendant-Bank and for an injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from recognising and registering the shares in the name of the 2nd defendant.

Finding of the Court:

1. The transaction is a pledge and not a mortgage. 2. The waiver of notice in the pledge agreement is not valid as it is inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act. 3. The suit is incompetent as the plaintiff, being the executrix of her husband's will, cannot file the suit without obtaining probate. 4. A suit for declaration and injunction in the present case is not maintainable.

Issues: 1. What are the terms of the pledge? 2. Whether the sale of shares by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiff cannot file this suit without obtaining probate? 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as it is for mere declaration? 6. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act is mandatory and cannot be waived by the pledgor. 2. A suit by an heir without obtaining probate is incompetent. 3. A suit for declaration and injunction in the present case is not maintainable.

Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with costs.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in O. S. No. 86 of 1949. The suit was brought by one Sree Raja Kakarlapudi Venkata Sudarsana Sundara Narasayamma Garu, for a declaration that the sale of 9,100 B-Class shares of the Andhra Cement Company Ltd. , Vijayawada (3rd defendant) by the Andhra Bank Ltd. , Vijayawada (1st defendant) to the Jaipur Sugar Company Ltd. , Rayagaddah (2nd defendant), is contrary to law, void and did not affect her right to redeem the pledge effected by her husband in favour of the 1st defendant-Bank and for an injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from recognising and registering the shares in the name of the 2nd defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that to secure the due payment of certain advances made by the 1st defendant-Bank to her husband amounting to Rs. 45,000 he pledged 9,100 B-Class shares bearing Nos. 143762 to 152s61 of the 3rd defendant Company, that her husband died on 20-4-1948 at Madras and that she was his widow and nearest heir, that in spite of her intimation that she was making arrangements to pay the amounts due to the 1st defendant Bank and redeem the pledge, the 1st defendant-Bank without notice to her sold the 9100 B-Class shares to the 2nd defendant-company, and that the sale is illegal and void and would not affect her right to redeem the pledge. She, therefore, prayed for a duration that her right to redeem the pledge remained unaffected and for an injunction restraining the 3rd defendant company from recognising and registering the shares.

( 2 ) THE 1st defendant-Bank contended in its written statement; first, that inasmuch as on her own admissions the late R. K. N. G. Raju died leaving a will appointing her as an executrix, she was not entitled to 61e a suit without obtaining a probate or producing a succession Certificate; secondly, that her husband, the late R. K, N. G. Raju, hypothecated the shares in question on 22-9-19-17 along with blank transfers duly signed by him and that in that instrument power had specifically been given to the Bank to sell and dispose of the shares either by public auction or private treaty as the Bank might deem fit without reference to him, and thirdly, that the Bank did demand the repayment of the loans and sold them only when there was no repayment and that even if notice of sab is required, the letters written by the Bank constituted sufficient notice. It was lastly contended that the suit for a mere declaration with regard to the sale of shares was misconceived and not maintainable in law. The 2nd defendant-company while adopting the main contentions of the 1st defendant pleaded that it is a bona fide purchase for value and that the plaintiff had no cause of action against it. The 3rd defendant Company filed a written statement pleading that it had done nothing to prejudice the interests of the parties concerned, that it was not a necessary party to the suit, that the plaintiff was not entitled to any injunction in the manner prayed for, and that it is in no way concerned with the disputes alleged in the plaint.

( 3 ) ON those pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issues : 1. What are the terms of pledge? 2. Whether the sale of shares by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for?

( 4 ) WHETHER the plaintiff cannot file this suit without obtaining probate?

( 5 ) WHETHER the suit is not maintainable as it is for mere declaration?

( 6 ) TO what relief is the plaintiff entitled? 4. On issues, 1, 2 and 3, the learned Subordinate Judge, after a review of the evidence held that the only objection of the plaintiff that there was no notice under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act was not tenable, as in the circumstances of this case it should be held that the pledger waived the right to receive the notice of sale, and that such a waive


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top