Skip to content


Alangaran Chetti and anr. Vs. Lakshman Chetti and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1897)7MLJ87
AppellantAlangaran Chetti and anr.
RespondentLakshman Chetti and ors.
Cases Referred and Seetharama v. Venkatakrishna I.L.R.
Excerpt:
.....definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. - this gourt has in several instances applied the principle to cases like the present......the principle to that case only. it is true that that is the only case provided for by section 101 of the transfer of property act, but that is a--if not the--very extreme case where otherwise an extinguishment of the charge would ordinarily be presumed. this gourt has in several instances applied the principle to cases like the present. rupabai v. audimulam i.l.r. (1888) m. 346 and seetharama v. venkatakrishna i.l.r. (1893) m. 94 and see also the the judgment in appeal no. 113 of 1895, the subordinate judge was therefore right in holding that by the mere execution of a, the security under e in respect of the plaint debt was not given up.2. the appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The only point argued is the question of priority raised in the third issue. It is contended that the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Gokaldas Oopaldas v. Puranmal I.L.R. (1884) C. 1035 is applicable only to the case of a purchaser of the equity of redemption. There is no ground for limiting the principle to that case only. It is true that that is the only case provided for by Section 101 of the Transfer of Property Act, but that is a--if not the--very extreme case where otherwise an extinguishment of the charge would ordinarily be presumed. This Gourt has in several instances applied the principle to cases like the present. Rupabai v. Audimulam I.L.R. (1888) M. 346 and Seetharama v. Venkatakrishna I.L.R. (1893) M. 94 and see also the the judgment in appeal No. 113 of 1895, The Subordinate Judge was therefore right in holding that by the mere execution of A, the security under E in respect of the plaint debt was not given up.

2. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.


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