Skip to content


Paya Matathil Appu Alias Kesava Nambi Vs. Kavumel Amina and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1895)5MLJ279
AppellantPaya Matathil Appu Alias Kesava Nambi
RespondentKavumel Amina and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....to second appeals. we do not think it was intended to preclude the court from adding in second appeal persons who had been originally joined in the suit. we are unable to follow the decision in chunni v. lala ram (1893) i. l. r. 36 a. 6. 2. the judge considers that a veruntpattom tenant claiming under a lease executed by the ottidar is not in a position to redeem the prior kanom. he observes that the lessee is not mentioned specifically in section 91 of the transfer of property act as belonging to the class of persons entitled to redeem and that under a lease, as denned in section 105, he is not described as taking an interest in the property but only a right to possession. 3. in our opinion the word 'interest' is not nee sarily confined to right of ownership, but is sufficiently.....
Judgment:

JUDGMENT

1. We think it is competent to the court to add parties who were defendants in the Court of First Instance, though not joined as respondents in the Lower Appellate Court. In the case referred to, Section A. 165 of 1894, the party was not added by the Court, but by the appellant himself. Section 559 occurs in the chapter of the Code relating to appeals from original decrees and it is by Section 587 that this section is, so far as may be, made applicable to second appeals. We do not think it was intended to preclude the court from adding in second appeal persons who had been originally joined in the suit. We are unable to follow the decision in Chunni v. Lala Ram (1893) I. L. R. 36 A. 6.

2. The Judge considers that a veruntpattom tenant claiming under a lease executed by the Ottidar is not in a position to redeem the prior kanom. He observes that the lessee is not mentioned specifically in Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act as belonging to the class of persons entitled to redeem and that under a lease, as denned in Section 105, he is not described as taking an interest in the property but only a right to possession.

3. In our opinion the word 'interest' is not nee sarily confined to right of ownership, but is sufficiently large to include any minor interest such as that of a tenant or a person having a charge.

4. No doubt there has been no precedent for this suit in Malabar; but that circumstance is not conclusive. The general principle is laid down by Fry L.J. in Jam v. 'Turner (1888) 39 Ch. D. 468', "according to the general law of the land a person who claims as lessee under a mortgagor, after the mortgage and has thereby derived an interest in the equity of redemption, has the right to redeem." The Calcutta cases only illustrate the rule and do not form any exception. So long as the plaintiff has an interest validly entitling him to possession, he is in a position to redeem. ) We must therefore reverse the decree and remand the appeal for disposal.

5. Respondents are to pay costs of this appeal. The other costs will follow the result.


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