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

1933 Supreme(Mad) 96

BARDSWELL
Subramania Mudali – Appellant
Versus
Semalai Goundan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Bardswell, J.

1. This appeal is by the defendant in the suit. On 9th March 1917, the plaintiff, on behalf of himself and his minor son sold the lands in suit to the defendant for Rs. 2,800. On, the same day the defendant executed a counter agreement to the plaintiff by the terms of which the property was to be sold back to the plaintiff on his paying for it Rs. 2,800 of his own money. The plaintiffs case is that within the period of seven years he tendered Rs. 2,800 to the defendant and that, after the defendant had refused to receive it, he deposited the money in the Court of the District Munsif of Dharapuram on 14tb February 1924, under Section 83, T.P. Act, treating the transaction o 9th March 1917 as a mortgage by conditional sale. This deposit was well within the seven years period. His petition under Section 83 was dismissed on the ground that it was not a case of mortgage by conditional sale, but that it was one of out and out sale to which that section did not apply. The plaintiff then brought the suit with which we are now concerned in which he set up that it was a case of mortgage by conditional sale and prayed that the defendant might be ordered to accept the depo






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