Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Krishna Pillay and ors. Vs. Rangasami Pillai and ors.

Krishna Pillay and ors. vs Rangasami Pillai and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 15, 1895
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/779725

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

Mortgage - Redemption--Mortgage sued on; not proved--Admission by defendants of mortgage right. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishna Pillay and ors.

Respondent

Rangasami Pillai and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Kunhi Kutti Nair v. Kutti Maraccar
Reported In
(1895)ILR18Mad462

Excerpt

mortgage - redemption--mortgage sued on; not proved--admission by defendants of mortgage right. - 1. the subordinate judge has agreed with the district munsif in finding that the kanom sued on is not proved to be genuine. but he has, nevertheless, given plaintiff a decree on the ground that exhibits a, b, c and d contain admissions of first defendant and his brother being kanomdar under those through whom plaintiff claims, and that these are admissions made within the statutory period so as to prevent the plaintiff's claim to redeem being time-barred. we agree with west, j., in govindrav deshmukh v. ragho deshmukh i.l.r. 8 bom. 543 in holding that a plaintiff failing to establish the mortgage on which the suit was based should not be allowed to fall back upon some other as to which admissions may have been made by the defendants in other proceedings. in unnian v. rama i.l.r. 8 mad. 415 the decree was passed on a mortgage expressly pleaded and relied on by the defendant; so also in kunhi kutti nair v. kutti maraccar 4 m.h.c.r. 3592. we therefore set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the district munsif.3. respondents must pay appellants' costs in this court and in the lower appellate court.

Full Judgment

1. The Subordinate Judge has agreed with the District Munsif in finding that the kanom sued on is not proved to be genuine. But he has, nevertheless, given plaintiff a decree on the ground that Exhibits A, B, C and D contain admissions of first defendant and his brother being kanomdar under those through whom plaintiff claims, and that these are admissions made within the statutory period so as to prevent the plaintiff's claim to redeem being time-barred. We agree with West, J., in Govindrav Deshmukh v. Ragho Deshmukh I.L.R. 8 Bom. 543 in holding that a plaintiff failing to establish the mortgage on which the suit was based should not be allowed to fall back upon some other as to which admissions may have been made by the defendants in other proceedings. In Unnian v. Rama I.L.R. 8 Mad. 415 the decree was passed on a mortgage expressly pleaded and relied on by the defendant; so also in Kunhi Kutti Nair v. Kutti Maraccar 4 M.H.C.R. 359

2. We therefore set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif.

3. Respondents must pay appellants' costs in this Court and in the lower Appellate Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial