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

1920 Supreme(SC) 41

VISCOUNT HALDANE, VISCOUNT FINLAY, LORD MOULTON, LORD SUMNER, LORD PARMOOR
MIRZA YADALLI BEG – Appellant
Versus
TUKARAM – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitor for appellant: Edward Dalgado.

Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (November 9, 1916) varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Amraoti (May 15, 1915).

The suit was brought in April, 1913, by the respondent against the appellant in the following circumstances.

On March 9, 1893, one Laxmansa Balkishnasa mortgaged to the appellant sixteen fields in five different villages by a document which, after reciting that the mortgagor had received Rs. 6000, mortgaged the property above men tioned for that amount and authorized the mortgagee (appellant) to take possession if the money due was not paid by July 9, 1893, and to apply the income towards payment of (1.) cultivation expenses, (2.) Government rent and other charges, (3.) interest at R. 1 per cent, per mensem, and (4.) the balance, if any, towards the principal ; the document also purported to authorize the mortgagee (appel-lant) to sell the property. On October 4, 1896, the said Laxmansa Balkishnasa executed a sale deed of one of the fields comprised in the mortgage to the respondents. In the year 1899 the appellant, the mortgagee, sued in the District Court, East Berar, to recover the sum due on the mortgage wi














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