Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)
Chinnu Pillai And Ors. vs Venkatasamy Chettiar And Ors. on 21 December, 1915 cites

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

The learned pleader for the appellants however contends that those propositions are really obiter and therefore not binding on us ; that they were so treated in Venkatagiri v. Sadagopachariar (1911) 22 M.L.J. 129; that the present case is in all fours with Venkataramana Iyer v. Gompertz (1908) I.L.R. 31 M. 425 which is referred to and not dissented from in the Full Bench case. I may say at once that; I do not consider that the propositions of law deduced by the Full Bench from a review of the previous authorities are merely dicta; they are the principles on which the actual decision in the case depended and are binding on us. Further as I think (if I may say so without presumption) that those propositions correctly lay down the law, I do not think it necessary to discuss the authorities cited therein.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Cangayam Venkataramana Iyer vs Henry James Colly Gompertz And Ors. on 7 April, 1908

The learned pleader for the appellants however contends that those propositions are really obiter and therefore not binding on us ; that they were so treated in Venkatagiri v. Sadagopachariar (1911) 22 M.L.J. 129; that the present case is in all fours with Venkataramana Iyer v. Gompertz (1908) I.L.R. 31 M. 425 which is referred to and not dissented from in the Full Bench case. I may say at once that; I do not consider that the propositions of law deduced by the Full Bench from a review of the previous authorities are merely dicta; they are the principles on which the actual decision in the case depended and are binding on us. Further as I think (if I may say so without presumption) that those propositions correctly lay down the law, I do not think it necessary to discuss the authorities cited therein.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Mulla Vittil Seethi vs Korambath Paruthooli Achuthan Nair And ... on 12 January, 1911

The learned pleader for the appellants says, that if we decide that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for sale subject to the previous mortgages, he is content to leave the decree as it is, The learned pleader for the appellants raised a further point in appeal which was not raised in the first court me that he is in a position to prove that the plaintiffs' mortgage was granted when the suit of the 2nd mortgagee was pending, and they were affected by lis pendens. As this point if allowed would necessitate a fresh plea and investigation on facts, we have declined to hear him on this point. The only question therefore for determination is, whether a puisne mortgagee who is not made a party to a suit for sale by a prior encumbrancer, is entitled to insist on a decree for sale subject to the previous mortgage. The rights and liabilities of a puisne encumbrancer not made a party to a suit for sale by the senior encumbrancer were elaborately discussed and all the cases were reviewed by a Full Bench of this Court and the conclusions arrived at were formulated in the shape of four propositions at the end of the judgment, Mulla Vittil Seethee v. Achuthan Nair (1911) 20 M.L.J. 213. If those propositions are correct the answer to the question in this case must be in the affirmative.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

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

16. Muhammad Usan Rowthan v. Abdulla (1900) I.L.R. 24 M. 171 seems to be ad idem with the case in Rangayya Chettiar v. Parathasarathi Naicker (1896) I.L.R. 20 M. 120 but a contrary conclusion was arrived at. One of the learned Judges who was a party to both the decisions was able to distinguish the previous case; I confess I do not understand the difference, though as suggested in the Full Bench case the decision.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Nanack Chand And Anr. vs Teluckdye Koer And Ors. on 8 April, 1879

19. The decisions in this Court purport to follow the decisions in Nanack Chand v. Teluchdye Koer (1879) I.L.R. 5 C. 265, and Dirgopal Lal v. Bolakee (1879) I.L.R. 5 C. 269. At that time the practice in mortgage suits was not settled, and decrees were executed as if they were mere decrees for money by attachment and sale. The statement in the judgments that the purchaser was holding as a trustee for the mortgagor subject to redemption shows that the previous decrees, in execution of which the sales took place, were mere money decrees, and not decrees for sale in suits by a mortgagee to enforce his right to realise the security. To a suit on the covenant to pay, none but the mortgagor need be made a party, and if a sale of the equity of redemption is permitted in execution of such a decree it is obvious that the 1st purchaser would be entitled to possession. These decisions are not authorities for the position that in a mortgage sale the 1st purchaser is always entitled to possession.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next