Rajaram Vs. Krishnasami and anr.

Rajaram vs Krishnasami and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 03, 1892

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/792520

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/792520
Court: Chennai
Judge: Muttusami Ayyar and ;Wilkinson, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 03, 1892
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Transfer of Property Act - Act IV of 1882, Section 3--Constructive notice--Notice of a deed, notice of its contents--Right of pre-emption reserved in family Partition deed--Covenant by guardian of infant coparcener--Tender of price. - - We cannot adopt the suggestion that the covenant is binding only on the guardi...

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajaram

Respondent

Krishnasami and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Jones v. Smith
Reported In: (1893)ILR16Mad301

Excerpt

transfer of property act - act iv of 1882, section 3--constructive notice--notice of a deed, notice of its contents--right of pre-emption reserved in family partition deed--covenant by guardian of infant coparcener--tender of price. - - we cannot adopt the suggestion that the covenant is binding only on the guardian, and it is clearly not in contravention of the rule against perpetuity......of the rolls, in patman v. harland l.r. 17 ch. d. 353 constructive notice of a deed is constructive notice of its contents, provided that the deed is a deed relating to the title and forming part of the chain of title. jones v. smith i hare, 43, which is relied on by the respondent, was referred to and it was held that that class of cases has no bearing at all on a case where the vendee knows that the deed of which he has notice is a deed affecting the land, and the question as to the extent to which it does affect the land can be ascertained only by looking at the deed itself. the third defendant's attention was drawn by the sale-deed to the deed of partition, and his omission to ascertain its contents must, with reference to the principle indicated in the remarks of the master of the rolls in the above case, be construed as wilful abstention from an inquiry which he ought to have made.2. with reference to the question of tender, we observe that the plaintiff expressed his readiness to pay the price fixed by the court and that he offered to pay the rs. 130 paid by third defendant to first defendant. we cannot, therefore, concur with the opinion of the subordinate judge that the absence of tender deprived appellant of his right of pre-emption.3. as for the contention of the respondents' pleader that the subordinate judge recorded no finding on the first issue, we observe that this point was not pressed upon him, although it was taken in the memorandum of appeal. both courts found that the covenant was beneficial to both parties, and we cannot, therefore, allow the contention that the covenant was not binding on first defendant because concluded by his guardian. we cannot adopt the suggestion that the covenant is binding only on the guardian, and it is clearly not in contravention of the rule against perpetuity.4. the decree of the lower appellate court is reversed and that of the district munsif restored with costs in this and the lower appellate court.

Full Judgment

1. The only question for determination is whether the defendant No. 3 took with notice of the plaintiff's right of pre-emption and of the necessity of his consent. The partition-deed was the first defendant's deed of title. By the partition he obtained a right to the specific portion of the house which he conveyed to the defendant No. 3. As remarked by jessel, Master of the Rolls, in Patman v. Harland L.R. 17 Ch. D. 353 constructive notice of a deed is constructive notice of its contents, provided that the deed is a deed relating to the title and forming part of the chain of title. Jones v. Smith I Hare, 43, which is relied on by the respondent, was referred to and it was held that that class of cases has no bearing at all on a case where the vendee knows that the deed of which he has notice is a deed affecting the land, and the question as to the extent to which it does affect the land can be ascertained only by looking at the deed itself. The third defendant's attention was drawn by the sale-deed to the deed of partition, and his omission to ascertain its contents must, with reference to the principle indicated in the remarks of the Master of the Rolls in the above case, be construed as wilful abstention from an inquiry which he ought to have made.

2. With reference to the question of tender, we observe that the plaintiff expressed his readiness to pay the price fixed by the Court and that he offered to pay the Rs. 130 paid by third defendant to first defendant. We cannot, therefore, concur with the opinion of the Subordinate Judge that the absence of tender deprived appellant of his right of pre-emption.

3. As for the contention of the respondents' pleader that the Subordinate Judge recorded no finding on the first issue, we observe that this point was not pressed upon him, although it was taken in the memorandum of appeal. Both Courts found that the covenant was beneficial to both parties, and we cannot, therefore, allow the contention that the covenant was not binding on first defendant because concluded by his guardian. We cannot adopt the suggestion that the covenant is binding only on the guardian, and it is clearly not in contravention of the rule against perpetuity.

4. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is reversed and that of the District Munsif restored with costs in this and the lower Appellate Court.

Same Parties Rajaram vs Krishnasami and anr. Same Subject Property Same Judge Muttusami Ayyar and ;Wilkinson, JJ.

Property