Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.04 seconds)Section 60 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
Section 5 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala And Others vs Koliyat Estates on 13 September, 1999
19. The decision of the apex court in State of Kerala
v. Koliyat Estate - 1999 (3) KLT 553 = 1999 KHC 640
has been referred. In that case of the plaintiff "Koliyat
Estate", a firm which possessed extensive acres of
plantation had obtained loan from the Central Bank of India
for which a tripartite agreement was executed between the
bank and the Koliyat Estate and the Government of Kerala,
pursuant whereto, the plaintiff firm executed Ext.B1
mortgage in favour of the Bank for which the State
Government stood as the guarantor. Subsequently, by
virtue of the provisions of the KLR Act more than 1200
acres of land covered by the mortgage became vested in the
Government as per Sec.86 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms
Act. Similarly, by virtue of the provisions of the Kerala
Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1970 certain
S.A.No.178/2002
18
land became a private forest. Therefore, the plaintiff estate
contended that it is entitled for reduction of mortgage
liability covered by Ext. B1 in proportion to the value of the
properties taken by the Government under the provisions of
the Kerala Land Reforms Act and under the Provisions of
the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act.
The courts below accepted the case of the plaintiff and held
that the plaintiff was entitled to get pro tanto reduction of
the mortgage debt. That was challenged before the
Supreme Court contending that the plaintiff is not entitled
to get pro tanto reduction of the mortgage debt since the
mortgaged land vested in the Government in accordance
with the provisions of a statute. The point that was raised
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the
mortgagor can claim pro tanto reduction of mortgage
liability under Sec.60 of the Transfer of Property Act which
deals with the right of a mortgagor to redeem on payment
or tender of the mortgaged money. The mode of effecting
S.A.No.178/2002
19
such redemption is prescribed in the section. The last
paragraph of Sec. 60 of the T.P.Act reads thus:-
Eswara Krishna Aiyar And Anr. vs Mariya Susai Reddiar And Ors. on 9 November, 1939
Jhumandas Shankar Lal - ILR 22 Bombay 304 and the
decision of the Madras High Court in Eswara Krishna Iyer
and Another v. Mariya Susai Reddiar and Others - AIR
1940 Mad.
Section 5 in Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta vs Patel Narandas Haribhai on 11 December, 1981
6. It was held by the Apex court in Chhaganlal
Keshavlal Mehta v. Patel Narandas Haribhai (AIR
S.A.No.178/2002
5
1982 SC 121):
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963
V. Ramaswami Ayyangar And Others vs T.N.V. Kailasa Thevar on 5 March, 1951
10. The decision of the Supreme Court in V.
Ramaswami Aiyengar and Others v. T.N.V. Kailasa
Thevar - AIR 1951 SC 189=1951 KHC 235, has no
application to the facts of this case. There the defendants
were entitled to get a decreetal debt scaled down in
accordance with the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists'
Relief Act, 1938 which came into force during the pendency
of the suit in that case. The facts dealt with in that case are
totally different. In that case it was held that the judgment
debtors are the mortgagors themselves and according to
the provisions of that Act there could not be any objection
to a decree for reduced amount being passed against an
agriculturist debtor, while the same relief is not given to
his co-debtors who do not fulfill that description.