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

1933 Supreme(Mad) 48

PAKENHAM WALSH
N. M. Kadir Meera Saheb Taraganar – Appellant
Versus
N. M. Pir Mahomed Taraganar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. One Pir Mahomed Taraganar executed a power-of-attorney in favour of one N. K. Mahomed Moideen Taraganar to conduct certain suits for him and realize the money. As the latter had advanced him money, and moneys realized by the agent were made a sort of charge for payment of the debt, and the power-of-attorney was not to be cancelled,, until the dues had been settled, the agent brought suits on the two mortgage deeds on behalf of the principal and, obtained decrees. Pending proceedings for sale of the mortgaged properties, the decree-holder put in applications stating that the decree amounts had been paid in full and satisfaction might be entered. His applications to enter up satisfaction were put in on 18th March, 1930. On 27th March, 1930, the agent assigned the decrees to one Kadir Meera Saheb, the appellant in these proceedings. The appellant put in an application under Order 21, Rule 16 to permit him, after recognizing his assignments, to oppose the applications to enter up satisfaction as, they were collusive documents. These two petitions filed under Order 21, Rule 16 were dismissed both by the original appellate Courts and the petition to record sa

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