(Querist) 08 August 2009
This query is : Resolved
HELLO ALL EXPERTS IN GUAJARAT LADY IS EXEMPTED TO PAY STAMPDUTY WHEN SHE PURCHASES ANY IMMOVABL PROEPERTY MY CLIENT PURCHASED SHOP AND HOME BY THE NAME OF HIS WIFE NOW BOTH HAVE FAMILY DISPUTE NOW MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO ADD HIS NAME IN THE SALE DEES IS IT POSSIBLE ?
Mollaya Padayachi And Anr. vs Krishnaswami Iyer And Ors. on 29 February, 1924 Cites 19 docs - [View All] The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 Section 70 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Section 69 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Section 41 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Citedby 5 docs Balkrishna Koundar vs Amirthavalli Ammal And Anr. on 10 February, 1959 Angammal vs M.M.S. Aslami Sahib on 28 April, 1913 Nanduri Saradamba vs Parakala Pattabhiramayya on 14 February, 1930 Arumilli Surayya vs Pinisetti Venkataramanamma And ... on 12 December, 1939 K.M.Sr.K. Lankaram vs O.K.S. Sundaragopala Aiyar And ... on 3 September, 1940
Chennai High Court
Mollaya Padayachi And Anr. vs Krishnaswami Iyer And Ors. on 29/2/1924
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
1. The 4th and 5th defendants are the appellants.
2. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 6,669- I-O with costs and further interest due on a deed of mortgage dated the 27th of January, 1916 executed by the 1st defendant in his favour for Rs. 5,500 with interest at 9 per cent, per annum. It is alleged that the amount was repayable within the 27th of January, 1917, and that, in default of payment, interest at 12 per cent. was chargeable from the date of the bond and was to be added to the principal with annual rests.
3. The 1st defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant. The case for the plaintiff is that the mortgaged properties belong to Murugayee, the mother of the 1st defendant and the wife of the 2nd defendant, that Murugayee who died on the 7th January, 1916, executed a will, dated the 2nd of April, 1914, whereby she bequeathed the properties to the 1st defendant, that the 1st defendant became the exclusive owner of the properties, that in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 55 of 1914 on the file of the Tanjore Additional Sub-Court, which was passed against the 1st and 2nd defendants and the deceased Murugayee in favour of Dandapani Vaithiyan the properties were brought to sale and purchased by the decree-holder on the 20th of January, 1916, that with a view to set aside the sale, the 1st defendant who was the owner of the properties which were sold, executed the plaint mortgage deed, that the amount advanced by the plaintiff was deposited in Court by the 1st defendant towards the amount due under the decree and the Court sale was set aside on the 1st of February, 1916, and that the money advanced on the suit mortgage thus satisfied the decree of Court against the 2nd defendant also and went to set aside the Court sale. The plaintiff states that the 2nd defendant has no interest in the mortgaged properties, that in case the 2nd defendant claims the mortgaged properties as joint properties, the mortgage is binding on him as the 1st defendant was acting as the manager of the family and borrowed the money for preserving the estate and for satisfying the decree against the 2nd defendant, that in any event the 2nd defendant was bound in law to reimburse the plaintiff to the extent to which he, the 2nd defendant was benefited by the amount advanced for the mortgage and that he is liable to pay the plaintiff half the amount deposited in O.S. No. 55 of 1914, as the decree was personally against the 2nd defendant, and his wife Murugayee and against the family properties of the 1st defendant.
4. The 3rd defendant was made a party as he is a subsequent purchaser from the 1st defendant. Defendants 4 to 8 were made parties as mortgagees and purchasers from the 2nd defendant. Defendants 9 and 10 were made parties as they are the sisters of the 1st defendant and live in the first item of the mortgaged properties with the plaintiffs' permission.
5. The 1st defendant filed a written statement admitting the plaintiff's claim and the allegations in the plaint.
6. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement denying that the properties belonged to hi