Skip to content


Kumarasami Chetty Vs. Poosari Sakka Naik and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ141
AppellantKumarasami Chetty
RespondentPoosari Sakka Naik and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....it to the 1st defendant's son in 1901, who sold it to the plaintiff who remained in possession under the sale deed. it is found that the land belongs to the 1st defendant; that the plaintiff's vendor never acquired any title to convey to the plaintiff. in second appeal it is contended that as the plaintiff is a mortgagee under the 1st defendant who is now found to be the owner, he is entitled to remain in possession as mortgagee. the plaintiff's claim in the plaint was not based on his mortgage right under the 1st defendant. it was inconsistent with it as he alleged that the land became the exclusive property of the 1st defendant's son who sold it to him. he could have become such owner only after the land was freed from the mortgage. he is not, therefore, entitled to any relief for.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff alleged he was a mortgagee of the plaint land which was Service Inam, under the 1st defendant from 1832; that it was resumed by the Zamindar in 1898, who granted it to the 1st defendant's son in 1901, who sold it to the plaintiff who remained in possession under the sale deed. It is found that the land belongs to the 1st defendant; that the plaintiff's vendor never acquired any title to convey to the plaintiff. In second appeal it is contended that as the plaintiff is a mortgagee under the 1st defendant who is now found to be the owner, he is entitled to remain in possession as mortgagee. The plaintiff's claim in the plaint was not based on his mortgage right under the 1st defendant. It was inconsistent with it as he alleged that the land became the exclusive property of the 1st defendant's son who sold it to him. He could have become such owner only after the land was freed from the mortgage. He is not, therefore, entitled to any relief for which he has not preyed and which is inconsistent with the title alleged by him.

2. We, therefore, dismiss this second appeal with costs.


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