Durgayya Vs. Anantha and ors.

Durgayya vs Anantha and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 15, 1890

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/777254

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/777254
Court: Chennai
Judge: Ananhur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Best, J.
Decided On: Oct 15, 1890
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Transfer of Property Act - Act IV of 1882, Section 99--Money decree 'on the responsibility of' mortgage premises--Attachment of mortgage premises--Purchase by mortgagee. -

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Durgayya

Respondent

Anantha and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Sathuvayyan v. Muthusami I.L.R.
Reported In: (1891)ILR14Mad74

Excerpt

transfer of property act - act iv of 1882, section 99--money decree 'on the responsibility of' mortgage premises--attachment of mortgage premises--purchase by mortgagee. - .....be invalid as against the respondents the sale in execution of the decree e obtained by plaintiff against timmappa chetti, the father of second and third respondents?3. the decree in question was obtained in december 1882, i.e., after the coming into operation of the transfer of property act, no. iv of 1882. section 99 of that act disentitles a mortgagee who attaches property in execution of a decree for the satisfaction of any claim 'whether arising under the mortgage or not' from bringing such property to sale 'otherwise than by instituting a suit under section 67 of the act.'4. the property in the present case was attached by appellant, who is a mortgagee, in execution of a decree obtained by him for arrears of rent due for three years from his mortgagor, and was subsequently sold in execution of the same decree, when appellant himself became the purchaser.5. the present case is no doubt distinguishable from kaveri v. ananthayya i.l.r.10 mad. 129 in that in the latter case no sale had actually taken place. moreover in kaveri v. ananthayya, it does not appear that there was a decree making the debt a charge upon the land. but the mere fact of the decree making the debt a charge on the property cannot be held to be sufficient to exclude the case from the rule contained in section 99 of the transfer of property act; nor is the fact of a sale having taken place sufficient to do so, compare the judgment of kernan, j., in sathuvayyan v. muthusami i.l.r. 12 mad. 325 where he says, 'the fact that the sale took place before the suit (i.e., the suit to get back possession of the property sold) was filed cannot give validity to the sale, if it was contrary to the provision of section 99.'6. we are of opinion that the decrees of the lower courts are correct and that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. On finding it stated in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court (para. 10) that the case had been argued before that Court 'mainly on the 6th issue and the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the lower Court under this issue is the only point for determination in this appeal,' the appellant's vakil has confined his contention in this Court to the same point.

2. The question is, therefore, whether the lower Courts are right in holding to be invalid as against the respondents the sale in execution of the decree E obtained by plaintiff against Timmappa Chetti, the father of second and third respondents?

3. The decree in question was obtained in December 1882, i.e., after the coming into operation of the Transfer of Property Act, No. IV of 1882. Section 99 of that Act disentitles a mortgagee who attaches property in execution of a decree for the satisfaction of any claim 'whether arising under the mortgage or not' from bringing such property to sale 'otherwise than by instituting a suit under Section 67 of the Act.'

4. The property in the present case was attached by appellant, who is a mortgagee, in execution of a decree obtained by him for arrears of rent due for three years from his mortgagor, and was subsequently sold in execution of the same decree, when appellant himself became the purchaser.

5. The present case is no doubt distinguishable from Kaveri v. Ananthayya I.L.R.10 Mad. 129 in that in the latter case no sale had actually taken place. Moreover in Kaveri v. Ananthayya, it does not appear that there was a decree making the debt a charge upon the land. But the mere fact of the decree making the debt a charge on the property cannot be held to be sufficient to exclude the case from the rule contained in Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act; nor is the fact of a sale having taken place sufficient to do so, compare the judgment of Kernan, J., in Sathuvayyan v. Muthusami I.L.R. 12 Mad. 325 where he says, 'the fact that the sale took place before the suit (i.e., the suit to get back possession of the property sold) was filed cannot give validity to the sale, if it was contrary to the provision of Section 99.'

6. We are of opinion that the decrees of the lower Courts are correct and that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Durgayya vs Anantha and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge Ananhur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Best, J.

Property