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

1952 Supreme(Bom) 136

GAJENDRAGADKAR, VYAS
Vadilal Chhaganlal Soni – Appellant
Versus
Gokaldas Mansukh – Respondent


Advocates:
D.V. Patel, for Appellants; V.T. Gambhirwala, for Respondents (Nos.1 and 2).

Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR. J. :- This is an appeal by the mortgagees against the preliminary decree for redemption which has been passed by both the Courts below. The property in suit is an open plot bearing Tikka No.17, Lot No.11, measuring 34 sq. yds. It was mortgaged on 9-11-1884 for Rs.178. The agreement between the parries was that the mortgagor was to redeem the mortgage 99 years after its execution and the mortgagee was given full authority to build any structure on this plot after spending any amount he liked. The mortgagor undertook to repay this amount to the mortgagee at the time of redemption. When the suit was filed by the plaintiffs to redeem this mortgage, the mortgagee pleaded that the claim was premature; 99 years had not still passed and so the amount under the mortgage could not be said to have become due within the meaning of S.60, T.P. Act. This was the contention of the mortgagee. The Courts below have held that the two material stipulations in the mortgage amounted to a clog on the equity of redemption and so they have allowed the plaintiffs to redeem the mortgage and passed a preliminary decree in that behalf. In this appeal Mr. Patel has contended that the Co




















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