Vadla Nagiah Vs. Valuru Divakara Mudaliar, Deceased, by His Legal Representative Valuru Pdrdshothama

Vadla Nagiah vs Valuru Divakara Mudaliar, Deceased, by His Legal Representative Valuru Pdrdshothama

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 12, 1917

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/799147

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/799147
Court: Chennai
Judge: Sadasiva Aiyar and ;Spencer, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 12, 1917
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 59 - Mortgage--Attestation--Admission by Mortgagee--Proof, necessity of. -

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vadla Nagiah

Respondent

Valuru Divakara Mudaliar, Deceased, by His Legal Representative Valuru Pdrdshothama

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Shamu Patter v. Abdal Kadir Rowthan
Reported In: AIR1918Mad564(1); 41Ind.Cas.585

Excerpt

transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 59 - mortgage--attestation--admission by mortgagee--proof, necessity of. - 1. we are bound by the privy council decisions in ram narayan singh v. adhindra nath mukhurji 34 ind cas. 900 : 4 l. w. 15 : 20 c. w. n. 989 : (1916) 1 m. w, n. 428 : 31 m. l. j. 251 : 20 m. l. t. 216 : 14 a. l. j. 1017 : j 8 bom. l. r. 862 : 25 cri. l. j. 115. and shamu patter v. abdal kadir rowthan 16 ind. cas. 250 : 35 m 607 : 16 c. w. n. 1009 : 23 m. l. j. 321 : 12 m. l. t. 23'; (1912) m. w. n. 935 : 10 a. l. j. 259 : 14 bom. l r. 1034 : 6 cri. l. j. 596 : 391. a 218 to hold that even where the defendant admits execution of what purports to be a mortgage-deed, the transaction would not be a valid mortgage, if the defendant does not admit that it was attested by two witnesses who saw him execute it or if it is not proved that it was attested by two such witnesses (section 59 of act iv of 1882).2. we, therefore, set aside the district judge's judgment and restore that of the munsif. the parties will bear their respective costs throughout.

Full Judgment

1. We are bound by the Privy Council decisions in Ram Narayan Singh v. Adhindra Nath Mukhurji 34 Ind Cas. 900 : 4 L. W. 15 : 20 C. W. N. 989 : (1916) 1 M. W, N. 428 : 31 M. L. J. 251 : 20 M. L. T. 216 : 14 A. L. J. 1017 : J 8 Bom. L. R. 862 : 25 Cri. L. J. 115. and Shamu Patter v. Abdal Kadir Rowthan 16 Ind. Cas. 250 : 35 M 607 : 16 C. W. N. 1009 : 23 M. L. J. 321 : 12 M. L. T. 23'; (1912) M. W. N. 935 : 10 A. L. J. 259 : 14 Bom. L R. 1034 : 6 Cri. L. J. 596 : 391. A 218 to hold that even where the defendant admits execution of what purports to be a mortgage-deed, the transaction would not be a valid mortgage, if the defendant does not admit that it was attested by two witnesses who saw him execute it or if it is not proved that it was attested by two such witnesses (Section 59 of Act IV of 1882).

2. We, therefore, set aside the District Judge's judgment and restore that of the Munsif. The parties will bear their respective costs throughout.

Same Parties Vadla Nagiah vs Valuru Divakara Mudaliar, Deceased, by His Le... Same Subject Property Same Judge Sadasiva Aiyar and ;Spencer, JJ.

Property