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.

Palanivel Gounden Vs. Subbaroya Gounden

Palanivel Gounden vs Subbaroya Gounden

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 26, 1940
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/816072

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
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Palanivel Gounden

Respondent

Subbaroya Gounden

Legal References

Cases Referred
Doroikannu Odayar v. Veeraswami Padayachi
Reported In
AIR1941Mad889

Excerpt

- wadsworth, j.1. the petitioner applied under section 19 of act 4 of 1938, to scale down the decree and his application was rejected. the grounds for this rejection were two-fold. firstly it was held that the petitioner could not be regarded as a judgment-debtor, he being impleaded as the vendee of the hypotheca in a mortgage suit. this decision cannot be upheld having regard to the decision of the bench in : air1939 mad186 , perianna v. sellappa. the second ground on which the application was rejected is that the liability which the petitioner seeks to scale down is one in respect of which there is a charge under section 55 (4)(b), t.p. act, and that therefore by section 10 (2)(ii) of madras act 4 of 1938, the debt cannot be scaled down. this contention must be negatived, having regard to our decision in o. n. p. no. 602 of 1939 reported in : air1941 mad59 , doroikannu odayar v. veeraswami padayachi . the liability to the decree-holder is not the same as the liability to the mortgagor in respect of which 'the vendor's lien subsists. in the result therefore the civil revision petition must be allowed with costs and the application remitted to the trial court for disposal in the light of this judgment.

Full Judgment

Wadsworth, J.

1. The petitioner applied under Section 19 of Act 4 of 1938, to scale down the decree and his application was rejected. The grounds for this rejection were two-fold. Firstly it was held that the petitioner could not be regarded as a judgment-debtor, he being impleaded as the vendee of the hypotheca in a mortgage suit. This decision cannot be upheld having regard to the decision of the bench in : AIR1939 Mad186 , Perianna v. Sellappa. The second ground on which the application was rejected is that the liability which the petitioner seeks to scale down is one in respect of which there is a charge under Section 55 (4)(b), T.P. Act, and that therefore by Section 10 (2)(ii) of Madras Act 4 of 1938, the debt cannot be scaled down. This contention must be negatived, having regard to our decision in o. n. p. No. 602 of 1939 Reported in : AIR1941 Mad59 , Doroikannu Odayar v. Veeraswami Padayachi . The liability to the decree-holder is not the same as the liability to the mortgagor in respect of which 'the vendor's lien subsists. In the result therefore the civil revision petition must be allowed with costs and the application remitted to the trial Court for disposal in the light of this judgment.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial