Handbooks of Hindu Law

Handbooks of Hindu Law

By (author) 

List price: US$22.39

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915 edition. Excerpt: ...would be, as regards the promisor, the only person entitled to payment, and that the contention, that payment to any member of the family was by itself necessarily binding on the promisee, could not be supported, and that, therefore, it lay on the promisor to show that his payment to a third party was binding on the promisee. These are propositions that seem to us to be sound in principle, and we apply them to the present case. The plaintiff and one Kallyanappa were members of a joint family and lived together and managed their joint property for the common benefit. Each used to recover debts due on bonds taken in the other's name. The defendant in 1890 passed a bond to the plaintiff. In 1892 he passed a mortgage bond to Kallyanappa wherein the debt under that bond was included and discharged. In the ordinary course of dealings the plaintiff would have admitted the charge, and the only reason he gives for disputing it is, that he says that he and Kallyanappa quarrelled some eight or nine years ago, and that Kallyanappa started a branch business at Byadgi. I-Ie admits, however, that no partition took place and no notice of any kind was given to the defendant. We find, moreover, that in 1894 the plaintiff received a debt due under a mortgage bond passed to Kallyanappa in 1888. We think, therefore, that the payment by the defendant to Kallyanappa must be held good as against the plaintiff.' If the payment is made to one of several joint creditors collusively and fraudulently it will not serve as a valid discharge of the debt as against them: Sheikh Ibrahim Tharagar v. Rama Aiyar (1911) 35 Mad. 685. It was held in Dayabhai Lallubhai v. Gopalji Dayabhai (1893) 18 Bom. 141 that the manager of a joint family was the only person, ...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 66 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 4mm | 136g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 123684226X
  • 9781236842268