Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Viswanatha Aiyar vs Chimmukutti Amma And Ors. on 24 July, 1931

S. Rosely vs Lazar Nadar And Ors. on 11 September, 1987

10. The said decision was referred to and relied upon by another Division Bench of this Court in Viswanatha Ayyar v. Chimmukutti Amma And Ors. (1932)S2 M.L.J. 272 : 135 I.C. 535 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 320 : A.I.R. 1932 Mad. 15. It was held that the sub-mortgage cannot bring the right mortgaged to him to sale, after the mortgagor, without notice of the sub-mortgage, pays off him mortgage out of Court.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thamattoor Chelamanna And Anr. vs Thamattoor Kurumbikkat Pare Manakkal ... on 3 December, 1969

1. These appeals arise out of three suits for redemption (O. S. No. 213 of 1930, O. S. No. 1 of I95J and O. S. 2 of 1951 of the Munsiff's Court, Perinalalmanna) brought by the same two plaintiffs, two of the suits, O. S. No. 1 of 1951 and O. S. No. 2 of 1.951, against the same three defendants. In all the three suits, the plaintiffs traced their right to redeem to a possessory mortgage dated 15-9-1911 -- this has been marked as Ext. A-1 -- and the three suits were tried together along with a fourth (O. S. No. 91 of 1951) with which we arc not concerned. The trial Court dismissed all the three suits; the dismissal was reversed and the suits decreed in first appeal; the decrees made in first appeal were confirmed by this Court in second appeal; and the 5ih defendant in O. S. No. 213 of 1950 and the 3rd defendant in O. S. No. 1 of 1951 and O. S. No. 2 of 1951 have come with these appeals, A. S. No. 209 of 1964 A. S. No. 210 of 3904 and A. S. No. 208 of 1964 respectively, on certificate granted under Section 6 (iii) of the Kerala High Court Act. The Division Bench that heard these appeals in the first instance has referred them to a Full Bench because it thought that an authoritative decision on the effect of the redemption of a mortgage, by suit, on the rights of a sub-mortgagee who was not made a party to the suit, was necessary. It thought that there was an apparent conflict between the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 1 of the Code, according to which the sub-mortgagee is a necessary party to the redemption suit, and too statement in Mulla's Transfer of Property Act, 5th Edition, pages 377 and 878, to the effect that more registration may not be notice of the sub-mortgage to the mortgagor and that, if a mortgagor redeems the mortgage without notice of the sub-mortgage, the sub-mortgage will be extinguished so far as the property is concerned. It also thought that Viswanatha v. Chimmukutti Amma, AIR 1932 Mad 115 spoke in two voices on this question. We might observe that the question posed arises only in A. S. No. 208 of 1904 and A. S. No. 210 of 1964 and out in A. S. No. 209 of 1964.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - K K Mathew - Full Document
1