Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (4.04 seconds)Kutti Umma vs Madhava Menon And Anr. on 8 February, 1901
The learned Judges interpreted Kutti Amma v. Madhava Menon (1901) 11 M.L.J. 186; as laying down two propositions of law, namely where no interest is stipulated for in the mortgage deed no interest is recoverable and secondly that a charge in the nature of a mortgage whether for principal or for interest must be expressed in writing and registered and cannot be raised by implication. It was slated that certain decisions of the Allahabad High Court are in favour of the view contended for on behalf of the respondents.
Panaganti Ramarayanimgar vs Sri Rajah Velugoti Govinda Krishna ... on 29 April, 1920
Learned Counsel urged that it was to obviate the consequences arising from the decision in Ramarayanimgaru v. Maharaja of Venkatagiri (1926) 52 M.L.J. 338 : L.R. 54 I.A. 68 : I.L.R. 50 Mad. 180 (P.C.), that the section was amended. We are of the opinion that this contention is well founded. Even if there is a mortgage and lease back and a charge is created on the equity of redemption for arrears of rent still the two transactions cannot be treated as one and the same mortgage compelling the mortgagor to redeem the same as such. It may be for the purpose of Order 34, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code that the rent under a lease deed may be considered to be a claim arising under the mortgage but that would not be enough to show that it is part of the same mortgage.
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Athan Kutti And Ors. vs Kuttanat Illoth Narayan Nambudri'S ... on 3 October, 1916
Though there are observations that under Section 61 of the Transfer of Property Act as it stood at that time, the mortgagor seeking to redeem the mortgages over the same property should be compelled simultaneously to redeem all the existing mortgages, we do not think that the two cases Athan Kutti v. Subhadra (1916) 32 M.L.J. 317, and Ramakrishna Kukkilaya v. Vekkar Kuppanna (1917) 33 M.L.J. 581, relied on by the counsel for the respondents can support his contention.
Section 67A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 83 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Abdul Khadir And Ors. vs V. Subramanya Pattar on 11 September, 1940
The case directly in point is that of Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri, JJ., in Abdul Khadir v. Subramania Pattar (1940) 2 M.L.J. 760, where the facts of the case were very similar. Patanjali Sastri, J., in delivering the judgment of the Court slated that though the mortgage and the lease back were intended to be parts of one and the same transaction the rent due under the lease cannot be considered as interest on the mortgage. An argument put forward that the two documents should be read together as forming a composite simple mortgage was not accepted. Most of the earlier cases on the subject were referred to in that judgment. The decision in Ex parte Isherwood: In re Knight L.R. (1882) 22 Ch. 384 and the observations of Jessel, M.R., were specifically considered.
Ramakrishna Kukkilaya vs Nekker Kuppanna Alias Raghavendra Rao ... on 8 August, 1917
Though there are observations that under Section 61 of the Transfer of Property Act as it stood at that time, the mortgagor seeking to redeem the mortgages over the same property should be compelled simultaneously to redeem all the existing mortgages, we do not think that the two cases Athan Kutti v. Subhadra (1916) 32 M.L.J. 317, and Ramakrishna Kukkilaya v. Vekkar Kuppanna (1917) 33 M.L.J. 581, relied on by the counsel for the respondents can support his contention.