9911796707
TMI Blog1928 (4) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal with costs and ordered the defendants to execute the conveyance in favour of the plaintiff as prayed, and gave other necessary directions in 1928 respect thereof. 4. The material facts of this case are as follows :The defendants are the sons of one Venkatapathi Naidu. By a deed dated January 27, 1891, Venkat Subrahmanya Ayyar, on behalf of himself and as guardian of his minor son Krishnasami Ayyar, sold the village of Siyatti to the above-mentioned Venkatapathi for the consideration of ₹ 10,000. 5. On the same day the parties executed what was called a counterpart document; by which it was provided that Venkatapathi should reconvey the said village to Venkata Subrahmanya after a period of thirty years from that date, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration of the sum of ₹ 3,000 conveyed and assigned all the right title and interest of the insolvent, Venkata Subrahmanya, in the house and lands in Siyatti village described in the schedule thereto unto the said Krishnasami Ayyar. 10. It appears that both Venkatapathi and Krishnasami died in or about the year 1919. 11. On June 29, 1920, notice was given on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendants, alleging that the plaintiff was the assignee from Krishnasami, and as such was entitled to the reconveyance of the property in suit. There is no question before the Board as to the sufficiency of the tender of the money referred to in the notice, nor is there any question as to whether the reconveyance was called for at the proper ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether there was a contract made on January 27, 1891, between Venkatapathi of the one part and Venkata Subrahmanya and Krishnasami of the other part, by which Venkatapathi undertook for consideration to reconvey the property if the other parties to the contract offered to purchase the same at the time stated and for the amount mentioned in the counterpart document, or whether, as alleged on behalf of the appellants and held by the learned Subordinate Judge, there was no completed contract, but only standing offer by Venkatapathi, the benefit of which could not be assigned to a stranger such as the plaintiff, until the offer had been accepted by the tender of the amount in June, 1920, and Nayadu the offer had ripened into a contract to bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contract could be assigned. 23. The only further question is whether the benefit of the contract had been effectually assigned to the plaintiff before the suit was instituted. 24. It was argued on behalf of the appellant-defendants that on the insolvency of Venkata Subrahmanya the property of the joint family, including the benefit of the above-mentioned contract, vested in the official assignee, and that the benefit of the contract never was assigned to the plaintiff. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that on the insolvency of Venkata Subrahmanya the joint family property remained in the joint family subject to any action which the official assignee might take to get possession of Venkata Subrahmanya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
