cites: 485238

M.N. Nagendran Chettiar vs Lakshmi Ammal on 18 January, 1933

2. The appellant relies on Venkatagiri v. Sadagopachariar (1912) 14 IC 449, Muhammad Elsman Rowthen v. Abdulla (1901) 24 Mad 171, Chinnaswami Padayachi v. Darmalinga Padayachi AIR 1932 Mad 566 and Ram Narain Sahoo v. Bandi Pershad (1904) 31 Cal 737, and also on a recent Full Bench case in Nagendra Chettiar v. Lakshmi Ammal AIR 1933 Mad 583, but I consider that they are not relevant to this case. All these cases are clearly distinguishable from the present for two reasons. In all these cases one of the mortgagees was not made a party in at least one of the suits, and secondly the purchase relied on for possession was one in Court auction. Here we have purely a private sale by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and no authority whatever has been quoted to show that the possession which the mortgagee obtained stands on a different footing from the possession of the mortgagor. The appellant is really driven to rely entirely on para. 2 of the decree in the plaintiff's suit "subject to defendant 3's prior lien" and to argue that the defendant is entitled on this to remain in possession till his mortgage is redeemed. 19 Halsbury, p. 2. para. 1, is relied on for the general meaning of the word "lien" where it is said that lien in its primary sense is a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. But "lien" may be either possessory or non-possessory: vide Fisher on Mortgages, p. 392. See also 19 Halsbury, p. 4, para. 4.

Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Venkatagiri Iyer vs Sadagopachariar And Anr. on 14 October, 1900

2. The appellant relies on Venkatagiri v. Sadagopachariar (1912) 14 IC 449, Muhammad Elsman Rowthen v. Abdulla (1901) 24 Mad 171, Chinnaswami Padayachi v. Darmalinga Padayachi AIR 1932 Mad 566 and Ram Narain Sahoo v. Bandi Pershad (1904) 31 Cal 737, and also on a recent Full Bench case in Nagendra Chettiar v. Lakshmi Ammal AIR 1933 Mad 583, but I consider that they are not relevant to this case. All these cases are clearly distinguishable from the present for two reasons. In all these cases one of the mortgagees was not made a party in at least one of the suits, and secondly the purchase relied on for possession was one in Court auction. Here we have purely a private sale by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and no authority whatever has been quoted to show that the possession which the mortgagee obtained stands on a different footing from the possession of the mortgagor. The appellant is really driven to rely entirely on para. 2 of the decree in the plaintiff's suit "subject to defendant 3's prior lien" and to argue that the defendant is entitled on this to remain in possession till his mortgage is redeemed. 19 Halsbury, p. 2. para. 1, is relied on for the general meaning of the word "lien" where it is said that lien in its primary sense is a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. But "lien" may be either possessory or non-possessory: vide Fisher on Mortgages, p. 392. See also 19 Halsbury, p. 4, para. 4.

Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Muhammad Usan Rowthan vs Abdulla And Ors. on 24 September, 1900

2. The appellant relies on Venkatagiri v. Sadagopachariar (1912) 14 IC 449, Muhammad Elsman Rowthen v. Abdulla (1901) 24 Mad 171, Chinnaswami Padayachi v. Darmalinga Padayachi AIR 1932 Mad 566 and Ram Narain Sahoo v. Bandi Pershad (1904) 31 Cal 737, and also on a recent Full Bench case in Nagendra Chettiar v. Lakshmi Ammal AIR 1933 Mad 583, but I consider that they are not relevant to this case. All these cases are clearly distinguishable from the present for two reasons. In all these cases one of the mortgagees was not made a party in at least one of the suits, and secondly the purchase relied on for possession was one in Court auction. Here we have purely a private sale by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and no authority whatever has been quoted to show that the possession which the mortgagee obtained stands on a different footing from the possession of the mortgagor. The appellant is really driven to rely entirely on para. 2 of the decree in the plaintiff's suit "subject to defendant 3's prior lien" and to argue that the defendant is entitled on this to remain in possession till his mortgage is redeemed. 19 Halsbury, p. 2. para. 1, is relied on for the general meaning of the word "lien" where it is said that lien in its primary sense is a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. But "lien" may be either possessory or non-possessory: vide Fisher on Mortgages, p. 392. See also 19 Halsbury, p. 4, para. 4.

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Chinnaswami Padayachi vs Darmalinga Padayachi on 21 March, 1932

2. The appellant relies on Venkatagiri v. Sadagopachariar (1912) 14 IC 449, Muhammad Elsman Rowthen v. Abdulla (1901) 24 Mad 171, Chinnaswami Padayachi v. Darmalinga Padayachi AIR 1932 Mad 566 and Ram Narain Sahoo v. Bandi Pershad (1904) 31 Cal 737, and also on a recent Full Bench case in Nagendra Chettiar v. Lakshmi Ammal AIR 1933 Mad 583, but I consider that they are not relevant to this case. All these cases are clearly distinguishable from the present for two reasons. In all these cases one of the mortgagees was not made a party in at least one of the suits, and secondly the purchase relied on for possession was one in Court auction. Here we have purely a private sale by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and no authority whatever has been quoted to show that the possession which the mortgagee obtained stands on a different footing from the possession of the mortgagor. The appellant is really driven to rely entirely on para. 2 of the decree in the plaintiff's suit "subject to defendant 3's prior lien" and to argue that the defendant is entitled on this to remain in possession till his mortgage is redeemed. 19 Halsbury, p. 2. para. 1, is relied on for the general meaning of the word "lien" where it is said that lien in its primary sense is a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. But "lien" may be either possessory or non-possessory: vide Fisher on Mortgages, p. 392. See also 19 Halsbury, p. 4, para. 4.

Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Ram Narain Sahoo vs Bandi Pershad on 22 April, 1904

2. The appellant relies on Venkatagiri v. Sadagopachariar (1912) 14 IC 449, Muhammad Elsman Rowthen v. Abdulla (1901) 24 Mad 171, Chinnaswami Padayachi v. Darmalinga Padayachi AIR 1932 Mad 566 and Ram Narain Sahoo v. Bandi Pershad (1904) 31 Cal 737, and also on a recent Full Bench case in Nagendra Chettiar v. Lakshmi Ammal AIR 1933 Mad 583, but I consider that they are not relevant to this case. All these cases are clearly distinguishable from the present for two reasons. In all these cases one of the mortgagees was not made a party in at least one of the suits, and secondly the purchase relied on for possession was one in Court auction. Here we have purely a private sale by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and no authority whatever has been quoted to show that the possession which the mortgagee obtained stands on a different footing from the possession of the mortgagor. The appellant is really driven to rely entirely on para. 2 of the decree in the plaintiff's suit "subject to defendant 3's prior lien" and to argue that the defendant is entitled on this to remain in possession till his mortgage is redeemed. 19 Halsbury, p. 2. para. 1, is relied on for the general meaning of the word "lien" where it is said that lien in its primary sense is a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. But "lien" may be either possessory or non-possessory: vide Fisher on Mortgages, p. 392. See also 19 Halsbury, p. 4, para. 4.

Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Appia K.R. Rukmani Ammal And Appia ... vs Kuttuvava Narasimma Iyer And Anr. on 6 January, 1921

3. Here we have both the mortgagees face to face in both the suits. And if there is any conflict between the decrees they have obtained, then the principle laid down in Rukmani Ammal v. Narasimma Iyer AIR 1921 Mad 612 is applicable. There both the mortgagees were parties to both the suits, and Sadasiva Ayyar, J., held that each having been impleaded, both are bound by both decrees on the principle that where the rights obtained under two decrees are in conflict with each other the rights under the latter decree must prevail.

Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Venkatrama Aiyar vs A.V. Rangiyan Chetty And Anr. on 25 October, 1923

It is sought also to support this interpretation by Venkatarama Aiyar v. Rangiyan Chetty AIR 1924 Mad 449, but "lien" in that case was said to mean all the rights of defendant 14 under his decree." In that case defendant 14 bad got his decree even before the widow, the puisne mortgagee, had got hers. This case is no authority for saying that the lien spoken of in the decree here means anything more than what defendant 3 got under his decree. He had chosen to satisfy his decree so far as the property was concerned by private purchase and is only therefore in possession as representing his mortgagor, These considerations are in my opinion sufficient to dispose of the appeal.

Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results