Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.40 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Section 76 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
All India Film Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Shri Raja Gyan Nath And Ors on 26 September, 1969
It is further observed that purchaser has dual character i.e. there
was no redemption but the sale operated to extinguish the
CS-274/2010 Page:-23/37
mortgage and transferred the right of mortgagor and mortgagee
in favour of plaintiff being auction purchaser and the plaintiff being
a auction purchaser acquired all right of the mortgagor and can
ask for recovery of possession. It has been further observed that
M/s Lakhi Ram Mahi Lal defendant in other cases was inducted on
02.09.70 and Samman Oil & General Mill were inducted on
20.03.70 and Indraprastha Finance Co. defendant in present case
was inducted on 16.09.1970; whereas the sale proclamation of the
property was ordered on 21.07.1970 and the date of auction was
25.09.70. The acts of the mortgagees in inducting tenants with
unlimited terms and even after the passing of the final decree on
23.5.1940 and even long after the sale of the property were
ordered had resulted in reduction of the value of the property at
the time of the auction which reflects their malafide intentions of
causing injury to the value of the property for their illegal gains.
Especially when the decree for sale having passed on 23.5.1940,
the Mortgagee's right to induct any tenant ceased. It is submitted
that when the property was put to sale and was purchased by the
plaintiff the mortgage was redeemed. Whether the mortgagor
makes the payment or the property was put on sale for failure of
the mortgagor to pay the amount, this cannot create any benefit
to defendant because it is well settled law that after sale of the
property the auction purchaser acquires all the right/interest of the
mortgagor as well as of mortgagee as they existed on the date of
mortgage. It was held in (1969 (3) SCC 79) titled as All India Films
Corporations V. Raja Gian Nath "That the interests of the
mortgagor and mortgagee united in the person of the purchaser
and the mortgage ceased to subsist. In this view of the matter the
CS-274/2010 Page:-24/37
purchaser, speaking in his character as a mortgagor, could claim
that the mortgagee's action came to an end and there did not
subsist any relationship between him and the tenants.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mahabir Gope And Others vs Harbans Narain Singh And Others on 14 April, 1952
13. There is, however, a well established exception to this
general rule. The general rule will not apply if a tenant,
CS-274/2010 Page:-16/37
inducted by a mortgagee in possession in the process of
prudent management, is given any protection or certain rights
are conferred an him by a statute enacted in the meantime.
Mortgagors rights to obtain actual possession of the mortgaged
property on redemption would be affected to that extent. This
exception, obviously, is the creation of the statute concerned
and not the Transfer of Property Act. This principle was
recognized by the Supreme Court in Mahabir Gopes case (AIR
1952 SC 205) (supra). It was held :