Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Velugubantla Narayya vs Kona Venkanna And Ors. on 30 April, 1953 cites

Marina Ammayi vs Mirza Bakhar Beg Saheb And Ors. on 19 December, 1940

4. It has been well established by decisions of this Court that if the mortgagor is entitled to the benefit of scaling down of the debt under Act 4 of 1938, that benefit would also enure to the alienee of the hypothec a in whole or in part whether he is an agriculturist or not. The benefit enures under general law, by reason of the property being relieved of the burden of the sealing down of the debt at the instance of the agriculturist mortgagor. See -- 'Arunachala v. Seetharam', AIR 1941 Mad 584 (C); -- 'Marina Ammaji v. Mirza Bhaker Beg', AIR.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

C.S. Ramier vs B.N. Srinivasiah on 18 September, 1940

If, however, the mortgagor is not an agriculturist and the question arose between purchasers of different portions of hypotheca, the fact that one of such purchasers is an agriculturist, who is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act, would not enable the other non-agriculturist purchaser to claim the benefit of such scaling down. This was the principle also enunciated by this Court and finally established now by various decisions beginning from -- 'Ramier v. Srinivasiah', AIR 1941 Mad 204 (G) and -- 'Sri-nivasa Thathachariar v. Sivasubramania Chettiar', AIR 1943 Mad 196 (H). If the agriculturist mortgagor is, however, not entitled to the benefit of the scaling down because the personal remedy against him is barred by limitation, and as he lost all that interest in the hypotheca by alienation, the non-agriculturist purchasers of the entire hypotheca or portions of it are not entitled to claim that the debt should be scaled down. It is no doubt true that notwithstanding the fact that a mortgagor's personal liability became barred and that he had parted with the entire interest in the equity of redemption he is entitled under the statute to redeem, the mortgage, but that circumstance would not entitle him to claim the benefit of the provisions of Act 4 of 1938.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

T.N.V. Kailasa Thevar vs V. Ramaswami Ayyangar And Ors. on 12 December, 1947

These principles, in our opinion, have not in any manner been affected or altered by the decision of the Supremo Court in -- ' (A)' which was an appeal against the decision of Happoll and Govindarajachari JJ. in -- 'Kailasa Thevar v. Ramaswami Iyengar', AIR 1949 Mad 238 (L). The question that arose in that case was in execution of a decree which was of a composite character. The decree against defendant 1 was for a larger sum, that is the full amount due under the mortgage. But as against defendants 2 to 7 the debt was scaled. down, and there was only a decree for a lesser amount as against them. Defendant 1 made an application in the executing Court after depositing a sum of Rs. 3250 that as the amount deposited by him together with the payments already made by him discharged the debt as scaled down by the High Court in favour of defendants 2 to 7, full satisfaction should he entered. The High Court took the view that the benefit which defendants 2 to 7 obtained could be claimed also by defendant 1 and that satisfaction of the decree should be entered as with the deposit made by defendant 1, the scaled down amount was paid up. But this view was not accepted by the Supreme Court. It was observed that it is not open to the executing Court to go behind the decree, and it was its plain duty to give effect to the terms of the decree that was already passed, it was also pointed out that though under the general law, the mortgage decree was one and indivisible, exceptions to the rule as admitted only where the integrity of the mortgage was broken at the instance of the mortgagee himself.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

R. Srinivasa Thathachariar vs Minor Sivasubramania Chettiar By Next ... on 17 September, 1942

If, however, the mortgagor is not an agriculturist and the question arose between purchasers of different portions of hypotheca, the fact that one of such purchasers is an agriculturist, who is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act, would not enable the other non-agriculturist purchaser to claim the benefit of such scaling down. This was the principle also enunciated by this Court and finally established now by various decisions beginning from -- 'Ramier v. Srinivasiah', AIR 1941 Mad 204 (G) and -- 'Sri-nivasa Thathachariar v. Sivasubramania Chettiar', AIR 1943 Mad 196 (H). If the agriculturist mortgagor is, however, not entitled to the benefit of the scaling down because the personal remedy against him is barred by limitation, and as he lost all that interest in the hypotheca by alienation, the non-agriculturist purchasers of the entire hypotheca or portions of it are not entitled to claim that the debt should be scaled down. It is no doubt true that notwithstanding the fact that a mortgagor's personal liability became barred and that he had parted with the entire interest in the equity of redemption he is entitled under the statute to redeem, the mortgage, but that circumstance would not entitle him to claim the benefit of the provisions of Act 4 of 1938.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1