Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Venkatesa Mudaliar And Ors. vs N. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar Trust ... on 18 September, 1990
2.Venkatesa Mudaliar and ors v. N.Krishnaswami
Mudalliar Trust (1991) 1 MLJ 592
Mathew Mathew vs Alexander Muthalali on 23 March, 1973
12.The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the decision
reported in AIR 1973 Kerala 270 (Mathew Mathew vs.
Alexander Muthalali) held that othi is an anomalous possessory
mortgage and that the mortgagor is personally liable for the
mortgage amount. While usufructuary mortgage does not impose
personal liability on the mortgagor, a person who borrows money
on othi is personally liable for the amount as in the case of
hypothecation bond. In other words, all the elements of
hypothecation bond are present in an othi transaction and in
addition possession of property secured is given to the
mortgagee, so that he may take the profit in lieu of interest. The
term "othi" if it occurs in the document implies then it was a
mortgage to which all the incidents of othi would have applied
and no special covenant for repayment by the mortgagor is
necessary.
Murugan vs Kesava Gounder (Dead) Thr Lrs And Ors. on 25 February, 2019
2.Murugan & ors v. Kesava Gounder (dead)
Thr.Lrs. and ors (Civil Appeal No.1782 of 2019, dated
25.02.2019).
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 90 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 61 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1