High Courts(1919) 04 MAD CK 0023

Amrutam Venkatappa and Others vs Vavilala Jalayya

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 April 1919 · Citation: (1919) ILR (Mad) 615 : 51 Ind. Cas. 111 : (1919) 19 LW 598 : (1919) 37 MLJ 98

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 166 words
1.

We do not think that this is a suit against the auction purchaser on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plaintiff within the

meaning of Section 66, Civil Procedure Code. The finding is that the defendant agreed that the property should be purchased in the name of the

defendant and that one half of it should be conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff after the sale certificate had been obtained. This in our opinion

is not a benami transaction at all. The mere fact that the plaintiff alleges in the plaint that the auction-purchaser was a benamidar for him has not in

our opinion the effect of debarring the plaintiff u/s 66, CPC from maintaining his suit for specific performance of an agreement by the auction

purchaser subsequent to the purchase to convey the property to the plaintiff. Such an agreement is not inconsistent with auction-purchaser''s own

title, but rather the reverse. We answer the question in the negative.