Skip to content


Tippayya Holla Vs. Venkata and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR6Mad74
AppellantTippayya Holla
RespondentVenkata and ors.
Cases ReferredPerlathail Subba Ban v. Mankude Narayana I.L.R.
Excerpt:
regulation xxxiv of 1802 applicable to mortgages where redemption is allowed at the end of any year. - .....it provided that the mortgaged lands should be made over to the mortgagee for cultivation; that a grain rent, estimated at a certain quantity, should be retained yearly in lieu of interest by the mortgagee, and that on the expiry of any year the mortgage might be redeemed and possession recovered on payment of the principal.2. this instrument falls within the purview of regulation xxxiv of 1802. the lower courts have held that an account must be taken of the value of the grain rent, and the mortgagor credited with any surplus which may be found in excess of interest at the rate of 12 per cent. the mortgagor has accepted the decree, which awards him certainly not more than he is entitled to claim.3. the amendment of the plaint was not improperly allowed.4. i would dismiss this appeal.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The instrument of mortgage in this case is not on all fours with the instrument which was the subject of this Court's decision in Perlathail Subba Ban v. Mankude Narayana I.L.R. 4 Mad. 113. It provided that the mortgaged lands should be made over to the mortgagee for cultivation; that a grain rent, estimated at a certain quantity, should be retained yearly in lieu of interest by the mortgagee, and that on the expiry of any year the mortgage might be redeemed and possession recovered on payment of the principal.

2. This instrument falls within the purview of Regulation XXXIV of 1802. The Lower Courts have held that an account must be taken of the value of the grain rent, and the mortgagor credited with any surplus which may be found in excess of interest at the rate of 12 per cent. The mortgagor has accepted the decree, which awards him certainly not more than he is entitled to claim.

3. The amendment of the plaint was not improperly allowed.

4. I would dismiss this appeal with costs.

Kindersley, J.

5. I agree, having regard to the terms of the mortgage in this case.


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