Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Acts
  • Article 44 nor Article 91
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Acts
  • Article 44 nor Article 91

    Kamakshi Nayakan v. Ramasami Nayakan And Anr.

    1. So far as the claim for a declaration that the hypothecation bond is not binding, the action is barred.

    2. As regards the rest of the claim, the mortgage and sale relied upon executed by the plaintiff's mother and guardian are void as against him except in so far as they can be shown to be for his, benefit or executed under circumstances otherwise rendering them binding upon him. Therefore in this suit for possession of the property comprised in such deeds, it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to set them aside as a condition precedent to a decree for possession We think, therefore, that neither Article 44 nor Article 91 applies.

    3. We must, therefore, modify the decree of the District Judge as to the possession of the land referred to in the mortgage and sale, and direct the appeal to be heard on the merits and disposed of according to, law. The respondents must pay and receive the proportionate costs of this appeal.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Kamakshi Nayakan v. Ramasami Nayakan And Anr.
    (Nov 5, 1896)