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

1939 Supreme(Mad) 186

NEWSAM
S. Narayanachari – Appellant
Versus
T. V. A. K. T. Annamalai Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Newsam, J.

1. The petitioner was a puisne usufructuary mortgagee. In a suit by the first mortgagee he was impleaded and the suit was decreed. Petitioner, though in terms directed to redeem, that is, to discharge the first mortgage, was in reality merely granted a privilege - the privilege of freeing his own security and preserving his possession. In no sense of the word is he a debtor. The decree is not against him for a debt payable by him, but in his favour allowed him a right in equity to redeem the first mortgage. To use the language of Section 3(iii) of the Debt Relief Act, petitioner is under no liability under the decree. His is not a debt.

2. The learned District Munsif of Tirupathi has in my judgment rightly dismissed his petition under Section 20 of the Debt Relief Act. I dismiss the revision petition with costs.

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