IMMANI APPA RAO Vs. GOLLAPALLI RAMALINGAMURTHI
LAWS(SC)-1961-9-20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
September 22,1961
IMMANI APPA RAO
Appellant
VERSUS
GOLLAPALLI RAMALINGAMURTHI
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD. VS. HUBTOWN LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-16] [REFERRED TO]SHAH JAYANTILAL POONAMCHAND VS. MALI VIRAJI [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-1232] [REFERRED TO]
BALABHADRAN VS. SARADA [LAWS(KER)-2014-8-856] [REFERRED TO]
MANUBHAI KHANDUBHAI NAIK VS. SUMANTRAI RANCHHODJI NAIK [LAWS(GJH)-2003-9-35] [REFERRED]
MAYA W/O LATE MADHU VS. SREEKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
MALLADI SEETHARAMA SASTRY VS. NAGANATH KAWLWAR AND SONS [LAWS(APH)-1967-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
T.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN VS. SETHU RAMAPANDIYAN [LAWS(MAD)-2022-10-221] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BASANT PRAKASH [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ LAL VS. SHRI RAJESHWAR PARSHAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1968-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. KHAO GALI RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2024-8-88] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAMMA VS. GOVINDAPPA [LAWS(SC)-2019-9-101] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH ISMAILBHAI HUSHAINBHAI VS. VANKAR AMBALAL DHANABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2024-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
DAL CHAND VS. BABU RAM [LAWS(ALL)-1980-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIR-UD-DIN VS. SHEIKH GH AHMAD [LAWS(J&K)-1975-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
LUKOSE T.J. VS. ASHA TEGI [LAWS(KER)-2022-10-271] [REFERRED TO]
KANNAMBATH NARAYANAN NAIR VS. KANNAMBATH SANKARAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1962-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
BHABOOT MAL VS. SENS MAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1972-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
SHIA SHARAN PRASAD SAHI VS. SRIDHAR PRASAD SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1973-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
SARADAMBAL AMMAL VS. A.M. NATESA MUDALIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1970-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD. VS. HUBTOWN LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
FERRODOUS ESTATES (PVT.) LIMITED VS. P. GOPIRATHNAM [LAWS(SC)-2020-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
G D HARSH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CERTIFICATION AGENCY [LAWS(RAJ)-1988-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
M D ARMY WELRARE HOUSING ORGANISATION VS. SUMANGAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. JAGDISH LAL [LAWS(SC)-1969-5-4] [RELIED ON]
SMT. PRABHATAI WD/O SHANKARRAO BODHANKAR VS. M/S. CHIMOTE & SONS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-115] [REFERRED TO]
NARAINI VS. PYARE MOHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1971-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
P. RAJALAKSHMI VS. S.THILAGAVATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-209] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH SAYAJI GANGURDE VS. BHAURAO KARBHARI PACHORKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-190] [REFERRED TO]
G.T. GIRISH VS. Y. SUBBA RAJU (D) [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. NADIAD MACHINERY AND ELECTRICAL MERCHANT CREDIT CO OP SOC LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2003-10-4] [REFERRED]
RAVI KRISHNA DUTTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1995-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
BOMI MUNCHERSHAW MISTRY VS. KESHARWANI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-145] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL VS. SUSHILABEN DAYALBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-86] [REFERRED TO]
KAMARBAI VS. BADRINARAYAN [LAWS(BOM)-1976-7-3] [REFERRED TO.]
SUSHILA BHIKU SHINDE VS. SULOCHANA BABURAO BHOJ [LAWS(BOM)-1981-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
BACHU SURYANARAYANAMURTY VS. KAKARLAPUDI VENKATA VEERABHADRA RAJU [LAWS(APH)-1974-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR SINGH VS. MONOMOHAN ROY [LAWS(CAL)-1974-12-11] [RELIED 0N]
HOLY FAITH INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD VS. SHIV K KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2005-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
DASARI SATYANARAYANA BEING MINOR VS. KANCHUPATLA APPA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1964-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
ELOF HANSSON INDIA PVT LTD VS. PRITHIVI SOFTECH LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-258] [REFERRED TO]
POTLURI SARASWATHI VS. VALLABHANENI VEERABHADRA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2002-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA NATIONAL BANK LTD VS. RANGAROON TEA CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1966-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is an appeal by a certificate granted by the High Court of Madras against its judgment and decree in Second Appeal No. 1656 of 1947. The appeal arises out of Original Suit No. 27 of 1939 filed by respondent 1 Gollapalli Ramalingamurthi against respondent 2 Immani Venkanna and his four sons appellants 1 to 4. The appellants and respondent 2 are members of an undivided Hindu family. The case for respondent 1 was that he had purchased the properties described in the Schedule attached to his plaint on April 1,1936 in a sale held by the Official Receiver in the insolvency of respondent 2. A registered sale deed was accordingly issued in favour of respondent 1 (Ex.P. 4) on September 21, 1936. In pursuance of the said sale respondent 1 obtained possession and enjoyment of such properties after partitioning them with Rayudu, the brother of respondent 2. In October 1938, however, the appellants and respondent 2 trespassed on the said properties and so respondent 1 had to file the present suit claiming a declaration of his title in regard to the said properties, and asking for their possession and or past and future mesne profits. That in brief is the nature of the suit from which the present appeal arises.
(2.)The claim thus made by respondent 1 was resisted by respondent 2 and the appellants on several grounds. It was urged by respondent 2 that the transfer in favour of respondent 1 was benami and that respondent was not the real owner of the properties. In support of this case respondent 2 gave, what according to him, was the antecedent history of the sale in favour of respondent 1. He alleged that he had sustained heavy losses in business conducted by him with the result that he was indebted to the extent of Rs. 25,000. Apprehending that the suit properties would be lost to the family at the instance of his creditors he and his junior mother-in-law Kanthamani Seshamma approached respondent 1's father-in-law Suryaprakasa Sastrulu for advice and on his advice respondent 2 executed a collusive and nominal mortgage deed for Rs. 1,000 (Ex. P. 9) in favour of respondent 1 on June 16, 1933. Similarly, on the same advice a similar nominal transfer deed was executed in favour of respondent 1 on August 6, 1939, (Ex. P. 12) after the properties covered by the said document had been released from an earlier non-possessory mortgage (Ex. P. 11) which had been executed on July 21, 1930. Thus, according to respondent 2 the documents executed in favour of respondent 1 were nominal and collusive and were not supported by any consideration.
(3.)Respondent 2 further alleged that the execution of the said collusive documents between him and respondent 1 came to the knowledge of some of his creditors and that led to an insolvency petition against respondent 2 by one of his creditors in I. P. No. 91 of 1933. This petition was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ellore on September 15, 1933, against respondent 2. In these insolvency proceedings respondent 2 was adjudicated insolvent and the Official Receiver, appointed to take charge of respondent 2's properties, brought the said properties to sale subject to the aforesaid nominal mortgages in favour of respondent 1. Kanthamani Seshamma purchased the said properties with her own money but benami in the name of respondent 1 on condition that respondent 1 would re-convey the said properties to the family of respondent 2 whenever called upon to do so. The allegation of respondent 1 that he had obtained possession of the properties was denied, and it was urged that respondent 1 had no title to the properties and was entitled to no relief in the suit filed by him. That is the substance of the pleas raised by respondent 2 and the appellants joined respondent 2 in making the same pleas by their separate written statement.
(2.)The claim thus made by respondent 1 was resisted by respondent 2 and the appellants on several grounds. It was urged by respondent 2 that the transfer in favour of respondent 1 was benami and that respondent was not the real owner of the properties. In support of this case respondent 2 gave, what according to him, was the antecedent history of the sale in favour of respondent 1. He alleged that he had sustained heavy losses in business conducted by him with the result that he was indebted to the extent of Rs. 25,000. Apprehending that the suit properties would be lost to the family at the instance of his creditors he and his junior mother-in-law Kanthamani Seshamma approached respondent 1's father-in-law Suryaprakasa Sastrulu for advice and on his advice respondent 2 executed a collusive and nominal mortgage deed for Rs. 1,000 (Ex. P. 9) in favour of respondent 1 on June 16, 1933. Similarly, on the same advice a similar nominal transfer deed was executed in favour of respondent 1 on August 6, 1939, (Ex. P. 12) after the properties covered by the said document had been released from an earlier non-possessory mortgage (Ex. P. 11) which had been executed on July 21, 1930. Thus, according to respondent 2 the documents executed in favour of respondent 1 were nominal and collusive and were not supported by any consideration.
(3.)Respondent 2 further alleged that the execution of the said collusive documents between him and respondent 1 came to the knowledge of some of his creditors and that led to an insolvency petition against respondent 2 by one of his creditors in I. P. No. 91 of 1933. This petition was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ellore on September 15, 1933, against respondent 2. In these insolvency proceedings respondent 2 was adjudicated insolvent and the Official Receiver, appointed to take charge of respondent 2's properties, brought the said properties to sale subject to the aforesaid nominal mortgages in favour of respondent 1. Kanthamani Seshamma purchased the said properties with her own money but benami in the name of respondent 1 on condition that respondent 1 would re-convey the said properties to the family of respondent 2 whenever called upon to do so. The allegation of respondent 1 that he had obtained possession of the properties was denied, and it was urged that respondent 1 had no title to the properties and was entitled to no relief in the suit filed by him. That is the substance of the pleas raised by respondent 2 and the appellants joined respondent 2 in making the same pleas by their separate written statement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.