Skip to content


Mallikarjanudu Setti Vs. Lingamurti Pantulu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1902)12MLJ279
AppellantMallikarjanudu Setti
RespondentLingamurti Pantulu
Cases ReferredMallikarjanudu Setti v. Lingamurti Pantulu
Excerpt:
- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. .....m. 244 we hold that the provisions of section 310a of the civil procedure code are applicable to a sale of mortgaged property sold under a mortgage decree; but in the present case the applicant under section 310-a. is a second mortgagee who was not made a party to the suit. this interest, therefore, could not have passed under the sale which he seeks to set aside under section 310a, for his right to redeem the prior mortgage will continue notwithstanding the decree and the sale thereunder.2. we hold, therefore, that he is not a person whose immoveable property has been sold within the meaning of section 310-a. he has, therefore, no locus standi to apply under that section.3. we set aside the order of the lower appellate court and restore that of the district munsif, but on the ground.....
Judgment:

1. Following the opinion of the Full Bench vide Mallikarjanudu Setti v. Lingamurti Pantulu &c.; I.L.R. 25 M. 244 we hold that the provisions of Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to a sale of mortgaged property sold under a mortgage decree; but in the present case the applicant under Section 310-A. is a second mortgagee who was not made a party to the suit. This interest, therefore, could not have passed under the sale which he seeks to set aside under Section 310A, for his right to redeem the prior mortgage will continue notwithstanding the decree and the sale thereunder.

2. We hold, therefore, that he is not a person whose immoveable property has been sold within the meaning of Section 310-A. He has, therefore, no locus standi to apply under that section.

3. We set aside the order of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif, but on the ground stated above. Bach party will bear his own costs throughout.


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