Back
1927 Supreme(Mad) 379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Balam Nookamma And Anr.
Versus
Sadireddi Dharmayya And Ors.
Decided On : 8 August, 1927
Admissibility of oral agreement for repayment of mortgage debt from usufruct of land
Headnote:
ADMISSIBILITY OF ORAL ARRANGEMENT - MORTGAGE DEBT - The court found no grounds for interfering in Second Appeal with the findings of fact of the lower appellate court. The only point for consideration was the admissibility of the oral arrangement providing for repayment of the mortgage debt from the usufruct of the land. The court held that the contention that this arrangement amounted to a lease was clearly untenable, and it did not constitute an usufructuary mortgage, but only a means of discharging the debt by putting the simple mortgagee in possession of the property. The court referred to legal provisions and precedents to support the admissibility of an oral agreement in such cases. The Second Appeal was dismissed with costs.
1. There are no grounds for interfering in Second Appeal with the findings of fact of the lower appeal-late court. The only point for consideration is as to the admissibility of the oral arrangement providing for repayment of the mortgage debt from the usufruct of the land. The contention that this amounted to a lease is clearly untenable, nor did it constitute an usufructuary mortgage, but only a means of discharging the debt by putting the simple mortgagee in possession of the property. [See Ram Baksh v. Durjan (1887) ILR 9 A 392 and Kumala Sahai v. Babu Nandan Mian (1909) 11 CLJ 39.] As such even an oral agreement may be proved.
2. We dismiss the Second Appeal with costs.
