Skip to content


Kizakini Akath Abdul Rakmian Naha Vs. Kizakini Akath Mahomed Naha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1892)2MLJ188
AppellantKizakini Akath Abdul Rakmian Naha
RespondentKizakini Akath Mahomed Naha
Excerpt:
- .....dated 15th november 1879, to check the practice on the part of mortgagees of suing their mortgagors on the debts as such, and in execution selling their mortgagors' interests in the property and thus defrauding purchasers, who were strangers to the mortgages, by enforcing the security against the property, of the existence of which security they were kept in ignorance.2. in the present case the decree sought to be executed has authorized the sale of the mortgaged property, and it is sought to sell the same subject to the other mortgage of which the decree-holder has obtained the assignment. we see nothing in the language of section 99 to justify a refusal of execution till the decree-holder obtains a decree on that other mortgage3. we must therefore set aside the order of the learned.....
Judgment:

1. The object of S 99 is, as stated by the Indian Law Commissioners of 1879 in their report dated 15th November 1879, to check the practice on the part of mortgagees of suing their mortgagors on the debts as such, and in execution selling their mortgagors' interests in the property and thus defrauding purchasers, who were strangers to the mortgages, by enforcing the security against the property, of the existence of which security they were kept in ignorance.

2. In the present case the decree sought to be executed has authorized the sale of the mortgaged property, and it is sought to sell the same subject to the other mortgage of which the decree-holder has obtained the assignment. We see nothing in the language of Section 99 to justify a refusal of execution till the decree-holder obtains a decree on that other mortgage

3. We must therefore set aside the order of the learned judge and restore that of the District Judge,

4. Respondent must pay appellant's costs in this Court.


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