Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing K.M.N.S.P. Nachiappa Chettiar (Dead) ... vs A.K.A. Ramachandra Reddiar And Ors. on 3 February, 1942

T.N.V. Kailasa Thevar vs V. Ramaswami Ayyangar And Ors. on 12 December, 1947

930 and Nachiappa Chettiar v. Ramachandra Reddiar (1942) 1 M.L.J. 510, that the decree for sale, whether preliminary or final, should, in such cases and even where the relief of scaling down is denied to some of the judgment-debtors, direct the sale of the property only for the scaled down amount. We have already set out the relevant portions of the decree of the High Court giving directions as to the framing of the preliminary decree and also the revised final decree drawn up by the lower Court. There is nothing in them to show that any direction was intended or given in a manner different from what was held to be proper and legal in the two decisions just referred to. If, therefore, defendants 2 to 7 could, by payment of the scaled down amount, get the property freed from the burden of the mortgage and if the decree-holder could proceed to sell the mortgage security only for the reduced amount, there is no reason for holding that further, execution of the mortgage decree could not be resisted by the first defendant by payment of what still remains due out of the amount to which the decree was scaled down.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Govinda Mohapatra vs T. Venkatakrishnayya And Ors. on 13 May, 1949

15. The next case relied upon on behalf of the appellant is that of Nachiappa Chettiar v. Ramachandra Reddiar, A. I. R. (29) 1942 Mad. 527: (208 I. C. 417). That case was decided on the theory that if the debt is scaled down at the instance of an agriculturist-mortgagor, no decree for a higher amount can be passed against non-agriculturist-purchasers, "subject to mortgage", mainly on account of the defect in the general law of splitting up of the mortgage or the debt. This case too is beside the point in consideration of the special provisions of the Orissa Moneylenders' Act. I should, however, observe with very great deference to the learned Judges who decided this case that a purchaser subject to mortgage places himself in the position of a debtor to the complete effacement of the mortgagor whose interest in the property thereby ceases. The creditor should not be made to lose the benefits of his rights under the mortgage against the mortgage property in the hands of a non-agriculturist who is entitled to no protection under the Act. It should be noted that within the four corners of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, there is no room for distinction between a real and genuine debtor and a speculator-purchaser. Within it the purchaser of a mortgage property is an good a debtor as a mortgagor, provided he is an agriculturist Under the Orissa Money lenders Act, however, the purchaser of a mortgage property is a debtor entitled to the benefits or not according as he has undertaken the liability of paying off the the mortgage or otherwise. In cases where he takes the liability to redeem the mortgage off the shoulders of the original debtor, the mortgagor for consideration he holds the money, as it were, for being handed over to the mortgagee. He is thus saddled with a liability the source of which is not money borrowed but property purchased. Basically he cannot be held entitled to a debtor's relief. Where however the subsequent purchaser has to pay with the result that he fulfils the indemnity condition of the mortgagor and is in the ultimate end entitled to call upon the mortgagor to compensate him for the payment to mortgagee in order to secure his purchase free from mortgage, his liability must be scaled down to the ultimate benefit of the original debtor in respect of his undertaking to indemnify. Respective operations of the Acts will call forth widely different considerations and no analogy can be drawn between the two. The statutes cannot be called part materia, the matters dealt with having widely divergent boundaries.
Orissa High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Balasubramania Chetty And Ors. vs Walajabad Dhanasekhara Saswatha Nidhi ... on 18 December, 1946

930 Satyanarayanamurthi v. Sathiraju (1942) 1 M.L.J. 506 Nachiappa Chettiar v. Ramachandra Reddiar (1942) 1 M.L.J. 510 and Subramanian Chettiar v. Ramachandra Reddiar (1946) 2 M.L.J. 439 given under Madras Act IV of 1938. It was held in those cases that where a mortgagor is an agriculturist and there is by the application of Madras Act IV of 1938 a reduction or discharge of his liability, a non-agriculturist purchaser from him of a portion of the hypthotheca cannot be refused the benefit which incidentally accrues to his land from such discharge or reduction provided in the latter case that the reduced amount is paid by the mortgagor. We do not see any analogy between those cases and the case before us in which the 7th defendant is not claiming through the defendants whose debt is discharged but through their co-mortgagor and in our opinion the principle underlying those decisions has no application here. Under Section 44 of the Indian Contract Act a release of one joint promisor does not discharge the other joint promisor or joint promisors and if as we consider the object of the proceedings under the Madras Debt Conciliation Act is only to benefit the applicant or those whom he represents and can in law represent, there is no reason or principle for holding that a statutory discharge obtained by a mortgagor under Section 10(2) of that Act would also discharge his co-mortgagor.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramaiyan vs )Venugopal on 29 July, 2019

5.Perusal of record shows that the revision petitioner relied on a judgment before the trial Court in P.S.Chetty vs. K.E.Reddy, 1988 (1) ALT 279 and contended that after scanning of the entire evidence, if the Court feels that summon has to be issued to a person to give evidence as a court witness, the court has power to do so even in the application filed by one of the parties to the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

Mridul Baruah vs Abdul Ahad Ahmed on 21 February, 2022

12. In the case in hand, having gone through the order of the learned Court below and also considering the reasons assigned but for rejecting the Petition No. 4269/2018, appears to be not at all unjustified or illogical. It is to be noted here that the suit was filed for specific purpose of the contract and the same has to be decided on the basis of contractual agreement alone and not on any sale or transfer of the subject matter as held by the learned Court below. It also appears that in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 183 of 2015, lodged by the respondent, all the three aforementioned vehicles have been seized by Police and the same were released in the custody of the respondent on execution of three separate bond by order of the Judicial Magistrate. As such, the apprehension, of the petitioner that the purpose of the suit will be defeated in the event of not calling the status report and calling the DTO, is totally unfounded. Moreover, the petitioner has filed the petition at a belated stage while the case was pending for hearing of final argument and the learned Court below has rightly observed that prejudice will be cause to the respondent if the prayer is allowed at this belated stage.
Gauhati High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R K Phukan - Full Document

This Civil Revision Petition Is Filed By ... vs G.Renuka Devi 2012 (2) Alt 675 on 11 November, 2022

05. I have heard learned counsel Mrs.T.V.Sridevi for petitioner, she would submit that rejecting petition before registering the same is bad which has to be set aside. She would further submit that as per Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC, Court has got ample power to summon any witness to arrive at just conclusion in the suit. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that cross-examining the other 3 attestor and scribe of Suit promissory note is necessary to prove the defence of petitioner in this suit. The learned counsel for Revision petitioner relied on ratio laid down by this Court in D.K.Narasamma Vs. G.Renuka Devi 2012 (2) ALT 675, where in it is held at para 9 at page 3 this Court discussed ratio laid down in decision P.S.Chetty Vs K.E.Reddy 1988 1 ALT 279 where in it is held which reads as under :
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G. Balaiah vs G. Ramchander And Ors. on 8 September, 1997

It is also observed in the aforesaid decision of this High Court in P.S. Chetty's case (2 supra) that the Court may scan the totality of facts and circumstances apart from the situations projected by the parties and arrive at an independent conclusion as to the necessity of a Court witness. No such exercise has been gone through by the learned trial Judge in the case before this Court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next