Skip to content


Butchiraju and anr. Vs. Ramalingamurty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1904)14MLJ337
AppellantButchiraju and anr.
RespondentRamalingamurty and ors.
Excerpt:
- - by the contract'between the parties the property was to be enjoyed by the third defendant as absolute owner if the now deceased father of the 1st and 2nd defendants through whom the plaintiffs claim failed to pay the money by the 24th march 1887. though the parties' agreed that no further sale-deed was necessary it may be that in order to comply with the provisions of the transfer of property act a further sale deed should have been, executed after the 24th march 1887 in order to complet'eathe third defendant's title. however this may be, the suit being based, entirely on an alleged mortgage the suit must fail, as there is in fact no mortgage......we dismiss the second appeal with.....
Judgment:

1. We do not think that there was any mortgage of the land. By the contract'between the parties the property was to be enjoyed by the third defendant as absolute owner if the now deceased father of the 1st and 2nd defendants through whom the plaintiffs claim failed to pay the money by the 24th March 1887. Though the parties' agreed that no further sale-deed was necessary it may be that in order to comply with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act a further sale deed should have been, executed after the 24th March 1887 in order to complet'eathe third defendant's title. It is not shown that at the date of the suit a right to obtain such an instrument has become bawed. However this may be, the suit being based, entirely On an alleged mortgage the suit must fail, as there is in fact no mortgage.

2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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