Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 60 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Thota China Subha Rao vs Mattapalli Raju on 10 May, 1949
In case of of Thota China Subba Rao v. Mattapalli Raju, AIR 1950 FC 1, it is observed as under :
Section 58 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 34 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Rajaram Vithal Sutar vs Ramchandra Pandu on 9 April, 1947
In this view of the matter, the Court below wrongly relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Parmeswaran Pillai's case (AIR 1996 SC 191) (supra) and that of Hirekhan v. Narmada Bai (AIR 1952 Nagpur 117) (supra), as, in both these cases Courts below were dealing with a decree of redemption other than the usufructuary mortgage. Consequently, the Court below fell in error.
Angammal vs V.K.M. Muhammad Sulaiman Lebbai And ... on 26 April, 1945
The question whether Rule 8(1) is applicable to the redemption suit of usufructary mortgage had also arose for consideration (in) Angammal v. Muhammed Sulaiman, AIR 1946 Madras 38. A preliminary decree in that case was passed on 15th Oct. 1935 and the time fixed for payment was 15th Jan. 1936. The plaintiff did not deposit the amount on or before that date. Application for final decree was filed in 1943 and the amount was deposited towards the end of 1942. The trial Court and the first appellate Court dismissed the petition. In second appeal, the High Court held that in a suit for redemption in a usufructuary mortgage the mortgagor can even after time fixed for payment by the preliminary decree has expired, take advantage of Order 34, Rule 8(1) of the C.P.C. by exercising the right of making the payment of the amount due from him as fixed under Rule 7(1) at any time before the final decree debarring him from all right to redeem the mortgaged property has been passed. It is observed as under :