TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1925 (5) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as and three moneylenders. One of the moneylenders died, and his legal representative was brought on the record as a defendant. The plaintiff is the respondent in this appeal. 3. The plaintiff is the son of V.S. Chockalingam Pillai, a Hindu of the Villala caste, by his wife, Lakshmi Ammal, who died before the suit was brought. The plaintiff is the sole heir of his late mother, and he claims the property to which the suit relates as her heir. On September 30, 1918, the plaintiff's father, Chockalingam, was adjudged insolvent by the High Court of Madras under the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act (III. of 1909). The plaintiff claims in his suit, with other reliefs, a declaration that a piece of land with a dwelling-house and buildings th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh L.R. 42 I.A. 202. If the plaintiff failed to prove that ante-nuptial agreement and that it was in performance of it that the property in question was purchased by Chockalingam in Lakshmi's name, his suit fails. 5. Chockalingam has not been called by either side to give evidence in the suit, and his absence from the witness box has not been satisfactorily explained. 6. The facts, so far as they can be ascertained by their Lordships from the record, are as follows : Chockalingam and Vinayatheertha Pillai, who died in 1898 or in 1899, were trading as pea merchants in partnership at 6 Mint Street, in Madras. When that partnership commenced their Lordships do not know. It does not appear what th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plaintiff to have been made. A railway company was negotiating for the purchase of the Mint Street house, and purchased it for the price of Rs.l0j315.8 from Chockalingam and Kathayee, and paid the price to them. It is to be presumed that the money then paid by the railway company to Kathayee was, or part of it was, received by her for and on behalf of her grandson Vadivelu, who does not appear to have had any other person to look after his interests. 7. In 1904 Chockalingam had purchased, apparently with his own money, houses 12 and 13 Memorial Hall Street, in Madras, and he, in 1909, mortgaged those houses for Rs. 9,000, and their Lordships consider it probable that Chockalingam, on May 12, 1909, had other property apart from his intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Letters Patent was heard by Sir W.S. Schwabe C.J. and Wallace J. The Chief Justice stated in his judgment: "The question to be decided is whether a purchase of property by one Chockalingam, an insolvent, in the name of his wife, Lakshmi, was a settlement on her on her marriage or was a benami transaction, she being benamidar for him. The evidence called was all one way--namely, that the property was purchased out of funds belonging 6/11 (six-elevenths) to Chockalingam and 5/11 (five-elevenths) to Lakshma's infant brother Vadivelu, as the heir to his father, formerly a partner of Chockalingam." 11. If there was such evidence as to the respective shares of Chockalingam and Vadivelu, the attention of their Lordships has not been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have executed a proper deed of settlement upon her. 14. In their Lordships' opinion it would be unwise to accept as proved such an oral agreement as is alleged on the part of the plaintiff except on the clearest and most satisfactory evidence of credible witnesses, and after giving the most careful consideration to the evidence in this suit their Lordships agree with Phillips J. and find that Chockalingam did not agree to make any settlement upon Lakshmi and that she had no beneficial interest in the property in question and was a mere benamidar for Chockalingam. 15. If it were necessary in this case to ascertain by evidence whether her position was that of a beneficial owner of the property in question and not that of a mere bena....