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

1974 Supreme(Mad) 524

VEERASWAMI, NATRAJAN
Tehmina Dinshaw Tehrani – Appellant
Versus
Official Assignee – Respondent


Advocates:
P. Sivarmakrishniah, O. Radhakrishnan and A. Veerappan, for Appellant; The Official Assignee, for Respondents.

Judgement

VEERASWAMI, C.J.:- This is an appeal by the first respondent from a judgment of Planiswamy, J., who held on an application by the Official Assignee that, having regard to the state of evidence as finally recorded, the only finding possible was that the first respondent wife and the second respondent husband who was adjudicated as insolvent by an order dated December 2, 1964, were equally entitled to the site and the building bearing No. 3/2A. College Road, Nugambakkam, Madras. The site was purchased on July 5, 1948, admittedly in the names of both those respondents. The consideration therefor was a sum of Rs. 21,595-11-8. In 1952 a building was constructed at a cost of about Rs. 65,000. Rs. 25,000 out of Rs. 65,000 was raised by a mortgage executed by both of them. Evidence was adduced on both sides to support the exclusive claim to the property made by each of them the 1st respondent and the Official Assignee. Ultimately, on an analysis of the entire evidence, it turned out that neither the appellant, who was the first respondent, nor the second respondent who was the insolvent

represented by the Official Assignee, could establish that one or the other contributed any part






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top