Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
Draviam Chettiar And Anr. vs Ramaiya Chettiar on 20 March, 1934 cites

Mamillapalli Kotappa And Ors. vs Pamidipati Raghavayya And Ors. on 8 October, 1926

18. If the defendants had to bring a suit for contribution on the mortgage Ex. XVIII, apparently it was barred long before 1926 when this suit was brought, whether the cause of action arose on the date of the mortgage of 1898or on the date of payment of the decree on it in 1904. But the appellant argues that he is in possession under Ex. B, and is a defendant and is entitled to use his right to the amount of Rs. 100 as a shield to protect his possession. In other words the fact that a new suit for contribution under Ex. XVIII would be barred is no answer to his right to remain in possession so long as he is not paid that amount also. Kotappa v. Raghavayya (1926) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 626 : 52 M.L.J. 532 is an express authority against the appellant on the point that the right to sue for a sub-rogated mortgage which the subrogee has paid arises on the date of the original mortgage. As I am bound by this decision I am not competent to consider whether this view is right. It would seem by implication to be an authority also on the point that on facts like the present, the subrogee cannot use such payment as a shield to protect his possession under another mortgage and insist on keeping it till he is paid the subrogated amount also. This last point was not raised or considered in that case. But if it were a good ground, it would probably have been. However that may be as pointed out for the respondent (plaintiff) the principle of using a mortgage debt as a shield for possession is confined to possession obtained by Court sale or otherwise in satisfaction of that debt in which case the defendant before he is deprived of his possession can claim to be put back into the situation when he was put into possession, i.e., when he was entitled to be paid his debt.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Mirza Yadalli Beg vs Tukaram on 8 June, 1920

115 at 131 : 63 M.L.J. 394 and Compare, Adams v. Angell (1877) 5 Ch. D. 634 a case of sale by the trustee in Bankruptcy of the mortgagor to the first mortgagee of the equity of redemption on the mortgaged property; and Mirza Yadalli Beg v. Tukaram (1920) L.R. 47 I.A. 207 : I.L.R. 48 Cal. 22 : 39 M.L.J. 147 (P.C.) a case of sale to the first mortgagee of mortgaged property in pursuance of a compromise decree on the first mortgage to which the second mortgagee was not a party. Here there has been no sale on the first mortgage Ex. XVIII, nor possession by any purchaser under it which is endangered at the suit of a subsequent mortgagee. The only possession of the defendant is under the mortgage Ex. B, sought to be redeemed and the defendant is proposing to use the first mortgage contribution to which he may have been entitled had he enforced it in proper time not as a shield to protect his own possession obtained in lieu thereof but as sword against the owner's independent equity of redemption.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Pingali Venkataramana Reddi By His ... vs Kotigari M. Rangiah Chetti And Ors. on 3 May, 1921

The appellants relied on Venkataramana Reddi v. Rangiah Chetii (1920) 41 M.L.J. 399 as in their favour. But it does not carry the principle of shield any further than the above authorities. On the facts which are rather complicated being disentangled, it will be found that all that was held was that the purchaser at a Court sale on a third mortgage who had been, put in possession and the 25th defendant appellant claiming under him as a mortgagee, could use as a shield to protect his-possession the priority of the third mortgage over the fourth mortgage rights of the plaintiff who had not been impleaded in the third mortgagee's suit though a fresh suit on the third mortgage would have been time barred on the date when the subsequent question arose.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Jokhu Bhunja vs Sitla Baksh Singh And Ors. on 20 December, 1929

652 and Jokhu Bhunja v. Sitla Baksh Singh (1929) I.L.R. 52 All. 539. In the latter case there was an express stipulation that a simple mortgage amount was to be added to the amount due under a usufructuary mortgage before redeeming it. In the former case there were four mortgages the first three of which were simple and the last usufructuary. It was held that the mortgagor could not redeem the usufructuary mortgage without paying off the amount of the simple mortgages.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1