Skip to content


Nanu Vs. Manchu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1891)ILR14Mad49
AppellantNanu
RespondentManchu and anr.
Excerpt:
transfer of property act - act iv of 1882, section 83--deposit in court by mortgagor. - 1. we think that the district judge was right in holding that the deposit intended by section 83 of the transfer of property act should be made unconditionally, and that, therefore, the district munsif was wrong in accepting the deposit. putting the deposit aside, mr. rama rau argues that his client is still entitled to his remedies on the mortgage. but the decree of the district munsif is not a mortgage decree and the appellant did not appeal against it. we could not, therefore, modify it to the prejudice of the respondents if, in other respects, we thought that the plaintiff was entitled to ask for a mortgage decree.2. this second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. We think that the District Judge was right in holding that the deposit intended by Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act should be made unconditionally, and that, therefore, the District Munsif was wrong in accepting the deposit. Putting the deposit aside, Mr. Rama Rau argues that his client is still entitled to his remedies on the mortgage. But the decree of the District Munsif is not a mortgage decree and the appellant did not appeal against it. We could not, therefore, modify it to the prejudice of the respondents if, in other respects, we thought that the plaintiff was entitled to ask for a mortgage decree.

2. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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