TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1912 (7) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the auction purchase was really for the benefit of the 2nd defendant and that the 1st defendant was only a benamidar. This plea has been upheld by both the courts. The 1st defendant set up his own title to the land as the real purchaser and contended that Section 317 of Civil Procedure Code was a bar to the plaintiff's suit. Both the Lower Courts held that Section 317. was not applicable in the circumstances of the case. There was an issue raised as to whether the 1st defendant was estopped by his conduct from questioning plaintiffs title. The conduct referred to consisted in the 1st defendant allowing the 2nd defendant to remain in possession of the land for a period of about 3 years after the auction sale without taking any ste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be estopped from asserting his own ownership, subject to an argument of Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar which I shall hereafter notice that the rule of estoppel is not applicable to such a case. There are no reasons to believe that the District Judge did not really agree with the District Munsif in his observation as to the part taken by the 1st defendant in the matter of the execution of the sale deed Ex. C. But it is not necessary to rest my judgment on the assumption that the District Judge intended to agree with the District Munsif. It would be quite enough if the 1st defendant with the knowledge of the recital that the land belonged to the 2nd defendant and was in his enjoyment as owner attested the sale deed executed by him to the plaintiffs. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to say "these words were used with reference mainly to acts indicating only subsequent consent to an application which had been made and which might have been objected to when originally made; but they apply a fortiori in a case like the present where the person estopped was a party to the transaction itself which he or others taking title from him seek to challenge after a considerable interval of time. In Carr v. The London and North-Western Railway Company (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 507, a very leading decision on the question of estoppel, the following was one of the propositions laid down. "Another proposition is, that, if a man whatever his real meaning may be so conducts himself that a reasonable man would take his conduct to mean a certain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is there to prevent a person who gets title, we shall suppose under a statute, from afterwards allowing it to be sold as the property of another person? I can find no reason why he should not do so any more than why a person having a title under a private conveyance should not allow it to be sold as the property of another. The cases cited by Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar viz., Abdul Aziz v. Khantker Mullick I. L R. (1911) C. 512 Kristnan Chetty v. Vellaichami Thevan (1911)21MLJ1077 and Madras Hindu Benefit Permanent Fund v. Ragava Chetty I.L.R. (1895) M. 200 are all inapplicable to the case. The attempt there was to get behind the very rule itself enacted by the statute by getting up a contention of estoppel. I might also put this judgment on anot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....immovedble property of a registered instrument. Hence the observations in Mannappa v. Surappa I.L.R. (1887) M. 234 may not apply to cases of alleged transfer by the subsequent conduct of the benamidar or by an oral agreement with the benamidar if such conduct or agreement took place after Act 4 of 1882 came into force. It is also clear as decided in Krishnan Chetty v. Vellaichami Thevan (1911)21MLJ1077 that estoppel by itself cannot form the basis of a cause of action or claim. But in this case the plaintiffs are in possession is prima facie evidence of title. The 2nd defendant had conveyed all his right to 2nd plaintiff and 1st plaintiff's vendor and could not therefore deny plaintiff's title and if so the defendant as contended in....