AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In view of our decision in Subbaramier v. Venkatachalapathi Aiyar (1940) 2 M.L.J. 515 that a simple mortgagee of agricultural land has a
saleable interest therein sufficient to satisfy Section 3(ii)(a) of Madras Act IV of 1938, it would seem to follow that the holder of a vendor''s lien in
agricultural land is equally qualified to be an agriculturist. But the trial Court has not gone fully into the question whether in fact the lien subsists. The
transferee did not admit his liability to pay to his transferor, as the learned Judge seems to think, but to the plaintiff the holder pi the incumbrance
over the right transferred. Whether or not the vendor''s lien subsists will in our opinion depend largely on the circumstances of the transfer - for
instance, if the transferee has the right to hold the unpaid money for the protection of his own interest against the incumbrances, there can hardly be
a debt due to the transferor in respect of which the lien may be said to subsist. But this question can best be investigated by the trial Court in
disposing of the pending application u/s 19. With these observations the petition is dismissed with costs.