Skip to content


Tiyagaraja Padyachi Vs. Ramanujam Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad422
AppellantTiyagaraja Padyachi
RespondentRamanujam Pillai
Cases ReferredJagappa v. Latchappa I.L.R.
Excerpt:
registration - interest in land--value--test. - .....is whether such a bond purports or operates to create an interest in the immoveable property of the value of rs. 100. we think not. if the whole debt remained unpaid on the 15th april 1879, the obligee's interest would exceed rs. 100, but it might have been paid in part or in full much earlier. the obligee could not have compelled payment earlier, but obligor might have compelled him to accept the money earlier, and the value of the interest actually created appears to us to be the least sum by the payment of which the interest would be determined.2. this was the teat laid down in jagappa v. latchappa i.l.r. 5 mad. 118 and we are content to accept it.3. we therefore dismiss the second appeal with costs.
Judgment:

Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.

1. The only material ground of appeal in this case is that the hypothecation instrument A, on which the suit was brought, was compulsorily registrable, and, being unregistered, could not affect the property. After reciting the hypothecation of the property for Rs. 73-15-9, the obligor proceeds to bind himself to pay the sum with interest within the 15th April 1879. Interest at the stipulated rate up to the 15th April 1879 would raise the whole amount due on the bond to something over Rs. 100, and the question is whether such a bond purports or operates to create an interest in the immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100. We think not. If the whole debt remained unpaid on the 15th April 1879, the obligee's interest would exceed Rs. 100, but it might have been paid in part or in full much earlier. The obligee could not have compelled payment earlier, but obligor might have compelled him to accept the money earlier, and the value of the interest actually created appears to us to be the least sum by the payment of which the interest would be determined.

2. This was the teat laid down in Jagappa v. Latchappa I.L.R. 5 Mad. 118 and we are content to accept it.

3. We therefore dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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