Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)Section 47 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Competition Act, 2002
Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Mallikarjunadu Setti And ... vs Lingamurti Pantulu And Valliappa ... on 10 February, 1902
The decree expressly mentions the value of improvements due to the respective defendants as required by Section 6, Clause (1), of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act and does not order the taking of any accounts either as regards the amount which may be found due under the mortgage on the date fixed for redemption as in an ordinary mortgage decree or as regards improvements. The Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act was -passed in 1900 when the old Civil Procedure Code of 1882 was in force. Under. that Code (according to the law as finally settled in this Court) only one decree is passed in an ordinary mortgage suit for redemption in districts even other than the Malabar District; see Mallikarjunadu v. Lingamurti Pantulu 25 M. 244 : 12 M..L.J. 279 (F.B.) The Malabar Compensation Act by Section 6, Clause (1), treated a suit for redemption in Malabar as a suit in ejectment and provided for only one decree which, of course, is a decree in ejectment. As regards decrees in ejectment there is no question of preliminary decrees and final decrees. As regards decrees for redemption passed in other districts under the Transfer of Property Act and the old Civil Procedure Code, there was only an order absolute for foreclosure or for sale provided for, after the simple decree for redemption was passed. There was under these Acts no preliminary decree and no final decree as distinguished from the simple decree for redemption, which was dated on the day that the judgment was pronounced in the suit. The Malabar Compensation Act, however, made departures from the Transfer of Property Act and the old Civil Procedure Code as regards the procedure in a suit for ejectment brought against tenants [which term includes mortgagees, see Section 3, Clause (1)], by (1) providing in Sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 6 for the passing of an order as to revaluation of improvements even after decree and before ejectment by an order of Court executing the decree, (2) by providing for the varying of the decree (originally passed) in accordance with the said order of the Court executing the decree re-valuing the improvements, (3) by providing that the matters relating to re valuation and to variation of the decree in accordance with such a re-valuation shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution of the decree within the meaning of Clause (1) of Section 244 of the old Code of Civil Procedure and (4) by not providing for the passing of an order for sale either nisi or absolute in such suits (see repealed Sections 88, 89, 92 and 93 of the Transfer of Property Act). The new Civil Procedure Code of 1908 by Order XXXIV, Rule 7, (see marginal note) styled the only decree passed in a suit for redemption in other districts under the old Code as a preliminary 'decree and provided newly by Order XXXIV, Rule 8, for the passing of a final decree in a redemption suit instead of the order absolute for sale provided for in the Transfer of Property Act, the provisions in which as regards decrees in mortgage suits were repealed by the new Civil Procedure Code. The new Civil Procedure Code, however, .makes, no reference to the Malabar Compensation Act, Section 6. under which decrees in suits against mortgagees of Malabar are directed to be passed in a particular form which, makes no pro-; vision for the two kinds of decrees, preliminary" and 'final". The new Civil Procedure Code in Section 4, Clause (1), says:, "in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise effect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form or procedure prescribed by or under any other Taw for the time being in force." It is thus clear that notwithstanding the passing of the new Civil Procedure Code, as far as suits in Malabar against mortgagees are concerned, there could be only one decree passed in a suit, under Section 6, Clause (1) of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act, and not two decrees, "preliminary " and "final". Provisions like directions for sale in default, allowing time to pay moneys declared as due and so on, not inconsistent with the Improve-merits Act and directed or allowed by the new Civil Procedure Code to be mentioned in decrees for redemption or ejectment, can, of course, be mentioned in decrees passed in suits falling under the Compensation Act also.