High CourtsDivision Bench(1908) 11 MAD CK 0019

Saminatha Pillai vs Saminatha Iyer

Madras High Court · Decided on 6 November 1908 · Citation: 4 Ind. Cas. 1096

HON’BLE JUDGES
Miller, J · Abdur Rahim, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 166 words
1.

We are not prepared to say that the confirmation of the sale would necessarily be a bar to an application of this kind if the applicant were able

to show that the fact that the sale was voidable u/s 99, Transfer of Property Act, was kept from his knowledge until after the confirmation of the

sale. But the person who brought the property to sale here was not the mortgagee but a third party. The appellant no doubt alleges that the suit in

which the money decree was obtained was conducted in the interest of the mortgagee but even so the decree was not in favour of the mortgagee

and the person who brought the property to sale was not the mortgagee though he may have had an understanding with the mortgagee in respect of

the fruits of the decree.

2.

We do not think the case is not within the provision of Section 99, Transfer of Property Act. the appeal is dismissed with costs.