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

1913 Supreme(Mad) 223

MILLER
Muthurakku Maniagaran – Appellant
Versus
Rakkappa Maniagaran – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Miller, J.

1. This appeal, I think, must succeed, and I put my decision on Section 69 of the Contract Act.

2. The 2nd defendant bought subject to the whole mortgage and was bound by law to satisfy the mortgagee himself either by payment or by suffering a sale of that part of the mortgaged property which was sold to him. The fact that a portion of the property had the previous day been transferred to the plaintiff did not affect that obligation : the property purchased by the plaintiff was rightly or wrongly ordered to be sold under the decree, and the plaintiff, to save the sale, paid the whole of the mortgage money. He was, I think, interested in making the payment : and. the 2nd defendant was bound by law to pay : there seems to be nothing more required to attract the provisions of Section 69.

3. The District Judge recognises that Section 69 would apply to the case, but fails to see that the 2nd defendant was bound by law to pay the whole mortgage money and not only his proportionate part thereof.

4. I agree in the decree which my learned brother proposes to make.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

5. The learned District Judge has reversed the District Munsifs Judgment and remanded the suit t

















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