Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Kunwar Gopi Chand vs Nanak Chand on 24 August, 1978 cites

Baijnath Prasad And Ors. vs Jang Bahadur Singh And Anr. on 26 November, 1954

After considering the two rival views, the Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan view in Lal Chand's case and the view taken by the Patna High Court in Baij Nath Prasad's case and Ram Narain Pasi's case and the Bombay High Court in Harilal Bhagwanji's case was overruled. The Supreme Court held that where a usufructuary mortgage was executed in respect of a house or other property and if the same property was leased out by the mortgagee to the mortgagor to secure his interest in the property, there was no reason, why he could not file a suit for realisation of money due under the rent note. It is always open to the mortgagee to sue the mortgagor on the basis of the rent note and take possession of the property or to induct some other tenant. The mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage, he can always pay off the mortgagee and get back the possession but till that is done, the mortgagee has a right to obtain the possession of the property.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Mian Feroz Shah vs Sohbat Khan on 11 April, 1933

In Mohammad Ashraf Ali Khan v. Behari Lal (AIR 1937 All 478), a Division Bench following the decision of the Privy Council in Feroz Shah's case held that where after usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagor executed a qabuleat in favour of the mortgagee by which the mortgagor retained possession of the mortgaged property on payment of rent and executed a third document whereby the mortgagor charged his equity of redemption to secure the due payment of rent, all these documents though executed on the same date, did not form one transaction.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Dr. Haji Muhammad Ahsanul Tauhid vs Shah Akhtar Hussain And Ors. on 14 May, 1959

In Dr. Haji Muhammad Ahsanul Tauhid v. Shah Akhtar Hussain (AIR 1960 Pat 106), almost in similar circumstances as present in the instant case, it was held that where a usufructuary mortgage was executed and the mortgaged property was leased out to the mortgagor on rent and the rate of rent represented the rate of interest no relationship of landlord and tenant existed as the lease and mortgage formed a component part of the mortgage transaction. These authorities, no doubt, support the defendant-applicant's contention.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kuer Mohammad Ashraf Ali Khan And Ors. vs Behari Lal And Anr. on 8 November, 1935

9. The above noted authorities show that there has been divergence of opinion on the question. The view taken by Patna High Court in Baij Nath Prasad and Ram Narain Pasi's cases (AIR 1955 Pat 357 and AIR 1957 Pat 24) and by the Bombay High Court in Harilal Bhagwanji's case (AIR 1958 Bom 8) are contrary to the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Kuer Mohd. Ashraf Ali Khan's case (AIR 1937 All 478) and Rajasthan High Court in Lal Chand's case (AIR 1963 Raj 69).
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ramnarain Pasi vs Sukhi Tiwary on 16 January, 1956

After considering the two rival views, the Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan view in Lal Chand's case and the view taken by the Patna High Court in Baij Nath Prasad's case and Ram Narain Pasi's case and the Bombay High Court in Harilal Bhagwanji's case was overruled. The Supreme Court held that where a usufructuary mortgage was executed in respect of a house or other property and if the same property was leased out by the mortgagee to the mortgagor to secure his interest in the property, there was no reason, why he could not file a suit for realisation of money due under the rent note. It is always open to the mortgagee to sue the mortgagor on the basis of the rent note and take possession of the property or to induct some other tenant. The mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage, he can always pay off the mortgagee and get back the possession but till that is done, the mortgagee has a right to obtain the possession of the property.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Chandu Lal And Anr. vs Ram Autar And Anr. on 13 October, 1961

In Lal Chand v. Nenoo Ram (AIR 1963 Raj 69), the defendant had executed a mortgage-deed in favour of the plaintiff and delivered possession of the house to the mortgagee. On the date of the execution of the mortgage-deed, the mortgagor executed a registered qabuleat in favour of the mortgagee reciting therein that he had taken the property on lease at a monthly rent of Rs. 278/- and would vacate the house when desired by the landlord. The amount of Rs. 278/- represented the interest payable on the mortgage money. The plaintiff-mortgagee brought suit for arrears of rent and eviction of the mortgagor on the basis of the rent-note. The mortgagor contested the suit on the ground that the mortgage and the qabuleat formed part of the same transaction and the mortgage being a simple one, there was no relationship of tenant and landlord and the mortgagee was not entitled to the possession of the house. A learned single Judge repelled the mortgagor's contention on the finding that even though the two documents were executed on the same date, they did not form part of the same transaction and, therefore, the mortgagee was entitled to maintain the suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the mortgagor.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1