9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of agreement for payment of annual sum from village income, creation of charge on village income, liability of transferees without notice, determination of plaintiff's share in village income, enforceability of charge against transferees for valuable consideration without notice. Analysis: 1. The case involves an agreement from 1860 where defendant No. 1's father agreed to pay an annual sum to the plaintiff's father in lieu of a share in village income. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking arrears and future payments from defendants. Defendants contended suit was multifarious, not in time, and they were not bound by the agreement. 2. The trial court held the suit was timely and not multifarious. It determined defendants' liability for the plaintiff's claim and calculated the plaintiff's share in the annual payment. Defendant No. 1 was held liable for arrears, while defendants 2 to 8 were liable for subsequent payments. 3. Three appeals were filed against the trial court's decree. The District Judge held that transferees without notice were not bound by the agreement and dismissed the plaintiff's claim against defendants 2 to 8. 4. The plaintiff argued that a charge was created on village income by the agreement. The court agreed, citing precedents where charges were held to exist on specific funds or properties, even without their existence at the time. 5. Precedents were cited to support the argument that charges can exist on specific funds or properties, as seen in cases involving agreements for payment from specific sources. 6. The court found that the agreement indeed created a charge on the village income, as the plaintiff's father agreed to a fixed sum regardless of actual income, indicating an intention to create a charge. 7. However, the court ruled that the charge was not enforceable against transferees without notice, citing legal principles and precedents that charges do not transfer an interest in the property and are not enforceable against such transferees. 8. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim against defendants 2 to 8 for payment from village income was rightly dismissed due to their status as transferees for valuable consideration without notice. 9. The plaintiff's share in the village income was determined based on the agreement and the deaths of his sisters. The court found his share to be 7/20 for the relevant period, and the decree against defendant No. 1 was upheld. 10. The appeal was dismissed with costs in separate sets, affirming the District Judge's decision regarding the enforceability of the charge against transferees without notice.
|
