A.ABDUL HADI
Balambika – Appellant
Versus
Elizabeth – Respondent
A. Abdul Hadi, J.
1. This revision by the mortgagee is filed against the dismissal of E.A.No. 105 of 1989 filed under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure and in E.P.No. 130 of 1988 in O.P.No. 1 of 1986. The said O.P.No. 1 of 1986 was filed by the respondent usufructuory mortgagor herein, under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, hereinafter called 'the Act'.
2. Admittedly in O.P.No. 1 of 1986 the respondent-mortgagor of the property in question, deposited the mortgage amount on 24-1-1986 as contemplated under Section 83 of the Act and notice was ordered to the mortgagee-petitioner herein as per the said section and though he entered appearance and was given time for filing counter on 11-11-1986 and on 3-12-1986 he did not file any counter. So, the respondent herein, who was the petitioner in the said O.P. was examined and there was no cross-examination by the petitioner herein, nor the petitioner herein let in any oral or documentary evidence. Never was it also pleaded that the mortgage amount deposited was not the correct amount due or that the petitioner was, unwilling to accept the mortgage amount. Then, on 12-1-1987 the order was passed in O.P.No. 1 of 1986 directi
7. (vide T.P. Kuppuswami Pillai v. Alwar Chettiar A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 89
11. Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (1990) I S.C.C. 193.
1. Abohala Sastriar v. Kalimuthu Piliai (1962) 1 M.L.J.304: A.I.R. 1962 Mad. 308
4. Chennichi alias Parikal v. Srinivasan Chettiar (1970) 1 M.L.J. 234
6. Chennichi alias Parikal v. Srinivasan Chettiar (1970) 1 M.L.J. 234
10. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 S.C.C. 602
12. In A.R. Anthulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 S.C.C. 602
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.