1927 JTR(Mad) 82
1928 AIR(Mad) 226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Jamula Narayana Murthi And Ors.
Versus
Nilambara Prudhvisinghi Santo ...
Decided On : 10 February, 1927
Anomalous mortgages and the rights of the mortgagee in possession.
Mortgages - Anomalous Mortgages - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The mortgages are anomalous mortgages. The document provides for the contingency to happen if payment is not made at the expiry of the period. It states that in default of payment the mortgagee is to be in possession till the mortgage is discharged.
Finding of the Court:
The decree of the learned Judge is right and that plaintiff has no right to bring the property to sale. Ramayya v. Guruva [1891] 14 Mad. 232 has no application as under the terms of the document the mortgagee was to be in possession for interest only after the period fixed for sale. As regards the principal sum the document gave a right of suit.
Issues: The issue was whether the plaintiff had the right to bring the property to sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that under the terms of the document, the mortgagee was to be in possession for interest only after the period fixed for sale, and as regards the principal sum, the document gave a right of suit.
Final Decision: The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Mortgages - Anomalous Mortgages - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The mortgages are anomalous mortgages. The document provides for the contingency to happen if payment is not made at the expiry of the period. It states that in default of payment the mortgagee is to be in possession till the mortgage is discharged.
Finding of the Court:
The decree of the learned Judge is right and that plaintiff has no right to bring the property to sale. Ramayya v. Guruva [1891] 14 Mad. 232 has no application as under the terms of the document the mortgagee was to be in possession for interest only after the period fixed for sale. As regards the principal sum the document gave a right of suit.
Issues: The issue was whether the plaintiff had the right to bring the property to sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that under the terms of the document, the mortgagee was to be in possession for interest only after the period fixed for sale, and as regards the principal sum, the document gave a right of suit.
Final Decision: The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
1. The mortgages are anomalous mortgages. The document provides for the contingency to happen if payment is not made at the expiry of the period. It states that in default of payment the mortgagee is to be in possession till the mortgage is discharged. We think the decree of the learned Judge is right and that plaintiff has no right to bring the property to sale. Ramayya v. Guruva [1891] 14 Mad. 232 has no application as under the terms of the document the mortgagee was to be in possession for interest only after the period fixed for sale. As regards the principal sum the document gave a right of suit. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.