Puttanna and anr. Vs. Korapolu Alias Bhagi Ammal and ors.

Puttanna and anr. vs Korapolu Alias Bhagi Ammal and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 10, 1908

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/799767

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/799767
Court: Chennai
Judge: Munro and ;Abdur Rahim, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 10, 1908
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 100 - Charge vendor and purchaser--Covenant by Vendee to a third person a certain quantity of rice annually--Whether such third person has a charge on the property sold. -

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Puttanna and anr.

Respondent

Korapolu Alias Bhagi Ammal and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Vide Webb v. Macpherson
Reported In: 2Ind.Cas.617

Excerpt

transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 100 - charge vendor and purchaser--covenant by vendee to a third person a certain quantity of rice annually--whether such third person has a charge on the property sold. - 1. we are of opinion that the plaintiff has no charge upon the property for her maintenance. the sale-deed creates no such charge. it is the seller and not the plaintiff who would have a charge upon the property for any unpaid purchase money. what the plaintiff relies upon is merely a covenant by the vendee with the vendor to pay the plaintiff a certain quantity of rice annually. such a covenant would not give rise to a charge vide webb v. macpherson 31 c.h 57. we, therefore, allow the appeal and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.

Full Judgment

1. We are of opinion that the plaintiff has no charge upon the property for her maintenance. The sale-deed creates no such charge. It is the seller and not the plaintiff who would have a charge upon the property for any unpaid purchase money. What the plaintiff relies upon is merely a covenant by the vendee with the vendor to pay the plaintiff a certain quantity of rice annually. Such a covenant would not give rise to a charge Vide Webb v. Macpherson 31 C.h 57. We, therefore, allow the appeal and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.

Same Parties Puttanna and anr. vs Korapolu Alias Bhagi Ammal and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge Munro and ;Abdur Rahim, JJ.

Property