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

1939 Supreme(Mad) 191

PANDRANG ROW
Alapati Bulli Venkanna – Appellant
Versus
Kantamani Ramanna – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pandrang Row, J.

1. This appeal raises a question of marshalling. The appellant is the purchaser of one of several items mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff in the suit, namely item 3, under the suit mortgage, Ex. A, dated 24th August, 1921. This item was purchased by the eighth defendant in 1925 for a sum of Rs. 13,000. The appellant wanted that his property, namely, item 3, should be sold last after exhausting all the properties covered not only by the suit mortgage, Ex. A, but also the suit mortgage Ex. B of April, 1926, and even the properties in another District namely, Vizag mortgaged under Ex. C in 1930. This claim Was disallowed by the Court below and the eighth defendant appeals.

2. So far as the properties covered by Ex. C are concerned, the appellants property, item 3 of A Schedule, is not included in it, and it is conceded before us that the appellant will not be entitled under Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act to claim the right of marshalling as against Ex. C properties. This concession was obviously unavoidable because the words of the section themselves are very clear that the right of marshalling can be claimed only where "the owner of two or more p



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