Madras High Court
Kolli Valappil Kalathile Veettil ... vs Natuwath Pappu Alias Valiya Achan on 17 April, 1912
Equivalent citations: 14IND. CAS.590
JUDGMENT Ayling, J.
1. I agree in the view of the learned Judge that defendant is liable to pay the enhanced Government revenue. Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act throws the harden of paying Government revenue on the mortgagee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary. I certainly can find no contract to the contrary in Exhibit A. See also Tuppan Nnmbudri v. Chinnapari Kutti 18 M.L.J. 31.
2. As regards the amount for which a decree has been given, there appears to have been no dispute raised by defendants in the original Court as to the amount due; and none of the issues covers such a point. In my opinion, the learned Judge was justified in awarding the sum claimed in the plaint.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Sadasiva Iyer, J.
4. I entirely agree. With the greatest respect, I dissent from the decision in Krishnier v. Arapvli Iyer 14 M.L.J. 488 and Panigaton Kanaran v. Raman Nair 17 M.L.J. 517 which proceed upon the ground that the mortgagee and mortgagor would not have contemplated fluctuation in the rate of interest as calculated at the lime of the mortgage. My experience is that usufructuary mortgagees, like owners, even contemplate a distinct loss and a minus balance of profits in particular years of their enjoyment.