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

1942 Supreme(Mad) 66

WADSWORTH
Pothukuchi Venkata Ramanayya – Appellant
Versus
Daggubati Mallikharjanudu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Wadsworth, J.

1. The defendants appeal against a preliminary decree on a mortgage. The mortgage was, dated 6th October, 1933, and provided for compound interest at 9 per cent. It was contended in the lower Court that the defendants were agriculturists. The lower Court has found that they are excluded by the operation of proviso C to Section 3 (2) of Act IV of 1938.

2. The facts are that for the half-year ending 31st March, 1936, they paid property tax on an annual rental value of Rs. 613, for the half-year ending 1st October, 1936, and for the half-year ending 31st March, 1937, on a rental value of Rs. 300, and for the half-year ending 30th September, 1937, on a rental value of Rs. 367. It was contended in the lower Court, firstly, that in order to come within the purview of proviso C, property tax on a rental value of not less than Rs. 600, must have been imposed throughout the period of two years specified in the proviso. This seems to us to be against the plain language of the proviso which does not use the word "throughout" but uses the word "within". If at any point of time within the period the disqualification has been incurred it will satisfy the terms of the proviso.

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