Bank Of India vs Gautam Carbon Paper Manufacturing Co. ... on 24 May, 2007
In the ruling Veerammal v. K.R.L. Lakshmanan Chettiar (supra) in para 4 Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed that:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.95 seconds)S.Kasthuri vs S.Arivukkarasu on 3 January, 2024
15. As rightly relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the second defendant, in the judgment reported in AIR
1960 Madras 529 in the case of Veerammal and anr Vs.
KR.L.Lakshmanan Chettiar and anr., this Court issued guidelines for
equitable mortgages as follows:-
S.Kasthuri vs S.Thirumaran on 3 January, 2024
15. As rightly relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the second defendant, in the judgment reported in AIR
1960 Madras 529 in the case of Veerammal and anr Vs.
KR.L.Lakshmanan Chettiar and anr., this Court issued guidelines for
equitable mortgages as follows:-
S.Kasthuri vs Parameswari on 3 January, 2024
15. As rightly relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the second defendant, in the judgment reported in AIR
1960 Madras 529 in the case of Veerammal and anr Vs.
KR.L.Lakshmanan Chettiar and anr., this Court issued guidelines for
equitable mortgages as follows:-
State Bank Of India vs Dr. T.K. Subramaniam And Ors. on 24 December, 1997
35. This argument has to be rejected outright and accordingly we reject the said argument. We also do not accept the conclusion of the trial court that the eighth defendant was not a guarantor, merely because he was not the actual mortgagor. The interpretation placed by the trial court on the definition of the word equitable mortgage does not in any way go to support the plea that the eighth defendant did not deposit the title deeds by way of equitable mortgage. The trial judge correctly relies on and refers to the judgment of this court in Veerammal v. KR. L. Lakshmanan Chettiar and the decision of the Supreme Court in Nathan (K.J.) v. Maruthi Rao (S.V.), to find out the necessary requisites for proving a mortgage. But the trial judge has failed to note that all the requisites are satisfied in this case and it fell into an error by saying that the eighth defendant by himself did not owe any money to the bank. That was not necessary for creating a mortgage by deposit of title deeds, in respect of a debt due by another person for whom the mortgagor stood as surety or guarantor. The evidence in this case is overwhelming to prove that the eighth defendant in fact stood as a guarantor to the tune of Rs. 5,25,000 and also deposited his title deeds in respect of D schedule properties as and by way of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The finding to the contrary by the trial judge is set aside.
1