Back
JAGMOHAN REDDY, P.CHANDRA REDDY, SRINIVASA CHARI
Rajah Mommadevara Naganna Naidu Bahadur Jamindar Garu (died) – Appellant
Versus
Rao Janardhana Krishna Rangarao Bahadur Jamindar Garu – Respondent
What is the interpretation of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act in relation to charges created by decree of court? What is the applicability of Section 82 and the concept of contribution to charges created by decrees of courts? What is the effect of a decree-created charge on bona fide purchasers for value without notice?
Key Points: - The court holds that Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act does not contemplate a charge created by decree of court and treats such charges as not within its purview. (!) (!) - Section 82 provides for contribution among mortgagors of several items of property, but it is not applicable to charges created by decrees of courts. (!) (!) - The appeal was dismissed, affirming that charges created by decrees of courts do not entitle a plaintiff to contribution under Section 100 or Section 82, and that Section 70 of the Contract Act does not apply in this context. (!) (!) (!)
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been referred to a Full Bench by the order of Manohar Prasad and Raganadham Chctty JJ. because of conflicting judicial opinion on the interpretation of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act.
( 2 ) THE facts that have contributed to the litigation may be briefly given. The plaintiff, who is tile appellant, instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 32,394. 00 by way of contribution from the defendants in the following circumstances. One Bom-madevara Narasimha Naidu was the owner of considerable properties. He died in 1918 leaving he-hind him his two sons, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and his second wife, Rajya Lakshmi Devamma. The 1st defendant and his sons filed O. S. No. 38 of 1919 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru for partition of the family properties and for separate possession of their share. Their step-mother Rajya Lakshmi Devamma was1 impleaded as the second defendant in that suit as she was entitled to maintenance. The suit ended in a decree for partition in which the properties set out in schedules A and B annexed to the present plaint were allotted to the share of the plaintiff, The 2nd defendant was awarded m
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
