Skip to content


Mutsaddi Lal and anr. Vs. Muhammad Hanif and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.853
AppellantMutsaddi Lal and anr.
RespondentMuhammad Hanif and ors.
Cases ReferredSubramaniam. v. Perumal Reddi
Excerpt:
mortgage - assignment of mortgagee's right--registration--transfer of property act (iv of 1882) sections 8, 54--intangible property. - - 454 is correct, this question must be answered in the affirmative, but that decision was disapproved by bhashyam ayyangar, j......deed was sufficient to pass to the plaintiffs the interests of the mortgagees under the deed of august 19th, 1885. if the decision in subramaniam v. perumal reddi 18 m. 454 is correct, this question must be answered in the affirmative, but that decision was disapproved by bhashyam ayyangar, j., in the later case of ramasami pattar v. chinnan asari 24 m. 449 at p. 463 : 11 m.l.j. 132. the remarks of the learned judge may have been, as contended by the counsel for the appellants, no more than obiter dicta, but, in my opinion, his view of the law is correct and the earlier decision in subramaniam. v. perumal reddi 18 m. 454 is erroneous. in the earlier case, the court relied on section 8 of the transfer of property act. it appears to me that that section cannot be read so as to.....
Judgment:

Chamier, J.

1. This was a suit for the recovery of Rs. 249 on the basis of a simple mortgage made on the 19th of August 1835. The mortgagees transferred all their rights under the mortgage to the plaintiffs by an unregistered deed of sale, dated the 2nd of December 1898. The present suit was instituted in August 1910. If by the assignment only a right to proceed against the mortgagors personally passed to the plaintiffs, the suit is admittedly barred by limitation. The question for decision is whether the unregistered deed was sufficient to pass to the plaintiffs the interests of the mortgagees under the deed of August 19th, 1885. If the decision in Subramaniam v. Perumal Reddi 18 M. 454 is correct, this question must be answered in the affirmative, But that decision was disapproved by Bhashyam Ayyangar, J., in the later case of Ramasami Pattar v. Chinnan Asari 24 M. 449 at p. 463 : 11 M.L.J. 132. The remarks of the learned Judge may have been, as contended by the Counsel for the appellants, no more than obiter dicta, but, in my opinion, his view of the law is correct and the earlier decision in Subramaniam. v. Perumal Reddi 18 M. 454 is erroneous. In the earlier case, the Court relied on Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act. It appears to me that that section cannot be read so as to override the provisions of Section 54 of the same Act. The interest of a simple mortgagee is plainly an intangible thing within the meaning of Section 51 and the transfer of it can be made only by a registered instrument. The result is. that the plaintiffs by the assignment in their favour acquired no right to sue as mortgagees. In my opinion, the decisions of the Courts below are correct. I dismiss this appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //