Subban Vs. Arunachalam

Subban vs Arunachalam

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 13, 1892

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/786211

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/786211
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Parker, J.
Decided On: Apr 13, 1892
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

Transfer of Property Act - Act IV of 1882, Section 85--Parties to a mortgage suit Objection in written statement as to non-joinder. -

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subban

Respondent

Arunachalam

Legal References

Reported In: (1892)ILR15Mad487

Excerpt

transfer of property act - act iv of 1882, section 85--parties to a mortgage suit objection in written statement as to non-joinder. - 1. we think that, under section 85 of the transfer of property act, it is necessary to make lakshumanan chetti a party, as he has an interest in the property comprised in the mortgage, even though the plaintiff may not ask for a personal decree against him. he is, at any rate, interested in item 4.2. the subsequent encumbrancers must also be made parties unless the items of property sold or mortgaged to them have been excluded from the properties against which plaintiff seeks a decree. it may be that sales or mortgages made with plaintiff's concurrence have excluded such items from liability; but, if so, they must be excluded from the suit. it is not clear that such is the case. the decrees of the courts below must be reversed and the suit remanded to the court of first instance for disposal.3. we will give the appellant the costs of this appeal and the other costs will abide and follow the result.

Full Judgment

1. We think that, under Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is necessary to make Lakshumanan Chetti a party, as he has an interest in the property comprised in the mortgage, even though the plaintiff may not ask for a personal decree against him. He is, at any rate, interested in item 4.

2. The subsequent encumbrancers must also be made parties unless the items of property sold or mortgaged to them have been excluded from the properties against which plaintiff seeks a decree. It may be that sales or mortgages made with plaintiff's concurrence have excluded such items from liability; but, if so, they must be excluded from the suit. It is not clear that such is the case. The decrees of the Courts below must be reversed and the suit remanded to the Court of First Instance for disposal.

3. We will give the appellant the costs of this appeal and the other costs will abide and follow the result.

Same Parties Subban vs Arunachalam Same Subject Property Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Parker, J.

Property