Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)Section 59A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Naduvile Marathe Ikkali Amma'S ... vs Karuppath Ammalu Amma'S Son Sankara ... on 18 September, 1935
In Lakshmi Amma v. Sankara Narayana Menon (1935) I.L.R. 59 Mad. 359, F.B. a full bench of the Madras High Court reached the same result upon a different ground. It was held, upon a consideration of the first and the third clauses of Section 92 together, that a puisne mortgagee in circumstances such as these could not be intended to be included in the first clause, since that clause referred only to persons holding pre-existing interests in the property, and that he could get no right of subrogation unless he held a registered agreement to that effect as provided in Clause (5).
Raj Raghubar Singh vs Thakur Jai Indra Bahadur Singh on 29 July, 1919
But in a later case of the same High Court, Him Singh v. Jai Singh [1937] All.
Tota Ram And Ors. vs Ram Lal And Ors. on 25 May, 1932
880, a bench of five Judges disagreed with the reasoning in Tota Ram v. Ram Lal and held that a puisne mortgagee who pays off a prior mortgage as part of the consideration for the puisne mortgage is using the mortgagor's money and not his own, so that he obviously acquires no right for himself by his payment.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Malireddi Ayyareddi vs Adusumalli Gopala Krishnayya And Anr. on 26 January, 1920
To this extent Section 92 merely reaffirms the law as it stood in India before the enactment of 1929, and the Privy Council had already held that an auction purchaser under a money decree who paid off a prior mortgage was entitled to subrogation against a subsequent mortgagee: see Malireddi Ayyareddi v. Gopala-krishnayya (1923) L.R. 51 I.A. 140 : s.c. 26 Bom. L.R. 204. I may also refer to Sir Dinshah Mulla's "Transfer of Property Act", second and., where at p. 523 the learned author says:-
Vithaldas Bhagvandas Darbar vs Tukaram Vithoba Kshatri on 5 November, 1940
That decision was referred to with approval by our own High Court in Vithaldas Bhagwandas v. Tukdram Vithoba (1940) 43 Bom. L.R. 225, 230.
1