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

1973 Supreme(Ori) 97

G.K.MISRA
CHANDRAMANI PRADHAN – Appellant
Versus
HARI PASAYAT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.G.Panda, P.V.Ramdas, RAMA NATIA

G. K. MISRA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Is the mortgagee. Opposite parties are the mortgagors. Opposite parties deposited Rs. 500/-towards the mortgage dues under Section 83 of the transfer of Property Act A notice was served on the petitioner by the court to accept this amount and to give delivery of possession of the mortgage security. The petitioner's case was that he was entitled to more money and the amount deposited would not satisfy the mortgage dues. The learned Munsif after having heard the parties directed the petitioner to accept the money deposited and deliver possession of the properties with necessary documents. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Subordinate Judge, Aska, who held that no appeal lay. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif dated 7-91971.

( 2 ) THE order of the learned Munsif is wholly misconceived. Section 83 of the T. R act, so far as relevant, runs thus:-"at any time the principal money payable In respect of any mortgage has become due and before a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property is barred, the mortgagor, or any other person entitled to institute such suit, may deposit, in any Court in which




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