High CourtsDivision Bench(1916) 07 MAD CK 0001

Vanheri Manakkal Purushothaman Nambudri vs Purumpulanil Sankunni Menon and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 31 July 1916 · Citation: 36 Ind. Cas. 551 : (1916) 4 LW 184

HON’BLE JUDGES
Spencer, J · Krishnan, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

16 paragraphs · 376 words
1.

We think that the view taken by the lower Courts that the jenmi''s title was extinguished by the order for sale obtained in the prior suit by the

melkanomdar is not correct. Tlie jenmi could not have worked out his rights in that suit as he was not entitled to pay the redemption money under

the decree, and as Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was then applicable, did not permit him to ask the Court for an order for sale

as he was not the mortgagee,though he was a defendant. Though he was a mortgagor he could not have applied under the authority of Govinda

Targan, C.P. v. Veeran 12 Ind. Cas. 432 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 323: 36 M.k 32 as he was not then the plaintiff.

2.

On the order for sale being made at the instance of the mortgagee the jenmi could not apply to have the sale carried out, whatever the rights of

the plaintiff might be. If the property had been sold his rights might have been affected thereby, but he would then have had the power u/s 310(a)

of the old CPC (corresponding to Order XXI, Rule 89) to apply to have the sale set aside on payment. In this case there was no sale.

3.

Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act extinguishes only the plaintiff''s right to redeem on an order for sale being passed, and it extinguishes

the security, i.e., the security of the mortgagee so far as the plaintiff is concerned.

4.

Ordinarily a suit by a melkanomdar does not debar the jenmi from subsequently-suing to redeem, even if he was a party defendant to the

melkanomdar''s suit when questions of res judicata between co-defendants do not arise vide Kuttisseri Illath Raman Namboodri v. Achutha

Pishurodi 14 Ind. Cas. 415 followed in Veerapuda-yan v. Muthu Karuppa Thevan 19 Ind. Cas. 589: 13 m.l.t. 463 and Appeal Against Order

No. 52 of 1910.

5.

We allow the appeal and remand the appeal to the lower Appellate Court for deciding the 4th issue and disposing of the appeal according to

law. Appellant will get his costs in this Court. Costs in the lower Courts will be provided for in the final decree.