N. MALA
Sornam Servai (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Chandrasekaran – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.07.1993 passed in O.S.No.6 of 1992 on the file of Sub Court, Devakottai.
The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in the appeal. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 28.07.1993 passed in O.S.No.6 of 1992 for recovery of money on a mortgage.
2. The facts pithily stated are as follows:
The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and the third defendant is the mother of the defendants 1 and 2. The second defendant was a minor at the relevant period. The defendants 1 and 3 approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.65,000/- for settling the joint family debts and for the educational expenses of the second defendant. The plaintiff advanced the loan on 13.06.1988 and on the same date, the defendants 1 and 3 executed a registered mortgage deed agreeing to repay the sum of Rs.65,000/- @ 1% interest within a period of 12 months. The defendants 1 to 3 further agreed to pay penal interest in case of failure to repay within the stipulated period. The plaintiff in the plaint stated that he was waiving penal interest. As the defendant
A.R.Deivasigamani Mudaliar Vs T.N.Somasundara Nadar(died) and others reported in 2003 (3) MLJ 91
A mortgage executed by a father on family property for business debts is binding on minor sons if it's not speculative; family customs allow new business ventures under Hindu law.
The execution of a registered mortgage deed must be proven, and past consideration is valid; failure to testify can lead to adverse inferences against the party withholding evidence.
The appellate court reaffirmed that the execution of a mortgage deed is valid with past consideration, and the burden of proof rests with the parties to provide evidence for their claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the requisites for a valid mortgage by deposit of title deeds under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property....
The proof of the document need not be the proof of its contents, and the failure to question the validity of a document in a timely manner can impact the outcome of a legal dispute.
A mortgage executed by a natural guardian without court permission is voidable against minors, and the limitation period for challenging such a mortgage is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Ac....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.