SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1842

SUJATA V.MANOHAR, M.M.PUNCHHI
Mohd. Abdul Khader Mohd. Kastim – Appellant
Versus
Pareethu Kunju Saved Ahammed – Respondent


ORDER

The suit property was under a usufructuary mortgage. The appellant was the mortgagor thereof. The mortgage money was Rs. 18,000/-. In the suit for redemption instituted by the appellant redemption was sought on payment of Rs. 18,000/-. On November 22, 1960, the trial court passed a preliminary decree in the following terms :

"In the result, the plaintiff is given a preliminary decree for redemption of the plaint property on deposit of the mortgage amount and value of improvements, if any, that may be fixed in the final decree. The plaintiff is allowed to recover mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 200/- per mensem from the date of deposit of the redemption price. First defendant will apply for the issue of a commission to assess the value of improvements. He will apply within one month from this date. The parties will bear their costs".

2. The said decree was confirmed in appeal on 16.11.1965. It was claimed that the decree of the trial court has merged therein and therefore the limitation for all purposes started from the date of the appellate court s order. The appellant claimed that the preliminary decree was deficient in as much as no time had been fixed for the appellant depos




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top