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

1926 Supreme(Mad) 196

COUTTS-TROTTER
Nadupi – Appellant
Versus
Subbaraya Chetty – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Coutts-Trotter, C.J.

1. I am very dissatisfied with the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge, but I see no option but to take his findings as they are. The suit was brought by two persons who were not at the time of this suit in possession. They, therefore, could not merely rely upon their possessory title and say: "We are in possession. These people must be ejected and they must go." They had not been in possession from a very long time and, therefore, they could only eject the defendants by showing that they had some sort of what I may conveniently call a paper title. In order to do that, they had ultimately to rely on Ex. A. That was a sale of house and lands and the plaintiffs case was that although the sale of the lands was a genuine enough transaction, the sale of the house was benami. If the matter had stood there all might have been well. But the parties raised a further question on which the learned Judge has given a finding. His finding is that the sale was taken benami to screen the property from creditors. It is quite obvious that those who claim under a document cannot succeed if it is necessary to their case to show that the facts surrounding it we


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