Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for M. R. Satwaji Rao (D) by L. Rs. VS B. Shama Rao (Dead) by L. Rs. ...
M. R. Satwaji Rao (D) by L. Rs. VS B. Shama Rao (Dead) by L. Rs. - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 623 : The legal documents establish that a suit seeking a charge decree over immovable property under Order XXXIV of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable even if the claim for return of money is barred by limitation. This is because the suit for redemption, which is a suit relating to mortgage under Order XXXIV, is not dependent on the maintainability of the underlying money claim. The court held that the mortgagee''''s purchase of the property in execution of a decree for arrears of rent (which was not a suit for sale in enforcement of the mortgage) was barred under Order XXXIV Rule 14 CPC, and that the mortgagee could not retain the property as his own but must hold it in trust for the mortgagor. This principle, grounded in Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, confirms that the right to redeem subsists despite the sale, and that the suit for redemption remains maintainable even if the original money claim is time-barred, as the right to redeem is a separate equitable right that survives the sale and is not extinguished by limitation on the underlying debt.Checking relevance for BATEY KRISHNA VS PARSOTAM DAS...
BATEY KRISHNA VS PARSOTAM DAS - 1944 0 Supreme(SC) 15 : The Privy Council held that a decree passed under Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, which declared the rights of a plaintiff to recover amounts paid to extinguish prior mortgages and created a charge on immovable property, was sufficient to create a valid charge enforceable under the Indian Limitation Act. The court emphasized that the final decree in the foreclosure suit (Suit No. 13/39 of 1927) merged the plaintiff’s subrogated rights and created a charge in his favor, even though the original claim for repayment of money may have been time-barred. The suit to enforce the charge was therefore maintainable within the 12-year limitation period because the cause of action arose from the decree itself, not from the original debt. This establishes that a suit seeking a charge decree under Order XXXIV is maintainable even if the underlying claim for return of money is barred by limitation, provided the charge is created by a final decree.Checking relevance for MA HNIT VS FATIMA BIBI (DEFENDANTS)...
Checking relevance for K. Parameswaran Pillai (dead) VS K. Sumathi alias Jesis Jessie Jacquiline...
Checking relevance for PRADYUMNA KUMAR MULLICK VS KUMAR DINENDRA MULLICK...
PRADYUMNA KUMAR MULLICK VS KUMAR DINENDRA MULLICK - 1937 0 Supreme(SC) 53 : The judgment confirms that a suit seeking a charge decree over immovable property under Order XXXIV, r. 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable even if the claim for return of money is barred by limitation. The Judicial Committee held that the plaintiff''''s application under Order XXXIV, r. 6, for a personal decree was dismissed because it was barred by limitation, but this did not deprive him of his right to bring a separate suit on the personal covenant contained in the deed of 1924. The Court emphasized that the remedy under Order XXXIV, r. 6, was not legally available in the manner attempted, but the plaintiff retained the right to pursue a suit on the personal covenant, which is a distinct remedy. Thus, the bar on one remedy (personal decree under Order XXXIV) does not preclude the maintainability of a suit for a charge decree over immovable property, as the two are independent legal actions.Checking relevance for SUBBAIYA PANDARAM VS MAHAMAD MUSTAPHA MARACAYAR...
Checking relevance for India Electric Works VS James Mantosh...
Checking relevance for Namboori Surya Kumari VS Bandaru Seetamahalakshmi...
Checking relevance for Gaddipati Bullemma W/o Mohana Rao VS Thota Venkayamma (Died)...
Checking relevance for Gurtej Singh VS Paramjit Singh...
Checking relevance for Narayan Deorao Javle (Deceased) Through Lrs. VS Krishna...
Checking relevance for Tarkeshwar Pandey S/o Late Vedvyas Pandey VS Sahabuddin Ansari S/o Late Ajimuddin Ansari...
Checking relevance for Tarkeshwar Pandey VS Sahabuddin Ansari...
Checking relevance for Parvinder Kaur W/O Late Vijai Pal Singh VS Board Of Revenue U. P. Lucknow...
Checking relevance for Antonysami VS Arulanandam Pillai...
Checking relevance for Mathuralal VS Keshar Bai...
Mathuralal VS Keshar Bai - 1970 0 Supreme(SC) 64 : A suit seeking a charge decree over immovable property under Order XXXIV of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable even if the claim for return of money is barred by limitation. This is because the mortgagee, even after losing the right to apply for a final decree for sale due to limitation, does not lose his status as a mortgagee or the mortgagor''''s right to redeem. The mortgage security continues, and the mortgagee retains the right to enforce the charge through a suit under Order XXXIV, provided the claim for redemption is not barred. The right to redeem remains intact, and the mortgagee''''s remedy to recover the mortgage money by sale is the only one lost upon limitation, not the right to seek a charge decree.Checking relevance for Ajit Chopra VS Sadhu Ram...
Checking relevance for Achaldas Durgaji Oswal (Dead) Through Lrs. VS Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda (Dead) Through Lrs. ...
Checking relevance for W. B. Essential Commodities Supply Corporation LTD. VS Swadesh Agro Farming And Storage Private LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Bimal Kumar VS Shakuntala Debi...
Checking relevance for State Of Maharashtra VS Pravin Jethalal Kamdar...
Checking relevance for Chedi Lal VS Saadat-un-nissa Bibi...
Chedi Lal VS Saadat-un-nissa Bibi - 1916 0 Supreme(All) 415 : The court held that Rule 14 of Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to a subsisting mortgage, not to a mortgage that has ceased to be enforceable at law due to the bar of limitation. In this case, the mortgage was made in 1901 with a two-year repayment term, and by 1915, the claim for recovery of the mortgage money had become time-barred under the Indian Limitation Act. The court concluded that since the mortgage was no longer subsisting and had become inoperative due to limitation, Rule 14 did not apply. Therefore, a decree for payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage—though barred by limitation—did not prevent the sale of the mortgaged property in execution, meaning a suit seeking a charge decree over immovable property is maintainable even if the claim for return of money is barred by limitation.
