Skip to content


Vasudevan Vs. Keshavan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad309
AppellantVasudevan
RespondentKeshavan and anr.
Excerpt:
malabar law - veppu or otti tenure--right of pre-emption--further charge created by jenmi--auction sale of jenmi's right subject to further charge--cause of action--remedy of veppu-holder. - - nor would the circumstance that the sale notification erroneously declared the land was liable for interest as well as the principal of the jenm panayam debt (if this was so) have prevented the auction-purchaser from showing that in fact the interest was not charged on the land.charles a. turner, kt., c.j.1. the veppu-holder was not entitled to have either the jenm panayam or the auction sale set aside; but, assuming that he came into court within time, he was entitled, on tendering the price, to claim that the jenm panayam should be transferred to him : and if no offer was made to him of the land at the price bid by the highest bidder at the auction sale, he was entitled to require that on payment of that price the sale should be made with him. he has not offered to pay the amount of the jenm panayam, nor has he applied for its transfer. he has asked that the sale at auction be set aside, because it was made subject to the principal amount of jenm panayam and interest. there is evidence, exhibit lii that at the auction sale an offer was made to his karnayan to.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The veppu-holder was not entitled to have either the jenm panayam or the auction sale set aside; but, assuming that he came into Court within time, he was entitled, on tendering the price, to claim that the jenm panayam should be transferred to him : and if no offer was made to him of the land at the price bid by the highest bidder at the auction sale, he was entitled to require that on payment of that price the sale should be made with him. He has not offered to pay the amount of the jenm panayam, nor has he applied for its transfer. He has asked that the sale at auction be set aside, because it was made subject to the principal amount of jenm panayam and interest. There is evidence, exhibit LII that at the auction sale an offer was made to his karnayan to purchase at the price offered by the highest bidder and refused. If he or his karnavan had purchased, the right to call for a transfer of the jenm panayam would not have been prejudiced by the purchase; nor would the circumstance that the sale notification erroneously declared the land was liable for interest as well as the principal of the jenm panayam debt (if this was so) have prevented the auction-purchaser from showing that in fact the interest was not charged on the land. The appeal is decreed and the decrees of the Courts below in so far as they decree the claim to set aside the auction sale are reversed with costs.


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