Skip to content


V.S. Singarachariar Vs. Pappathi Ammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad127; (1940)2MLJ501
AppellantV.S. Singarachariar
RespondentPappathi Ammal
Cases ReferredSubbaramier v. Venkatachalapathi Aiyar
Excerpt:
- - but this question can best be investigated by the trial court in disposing of the pending application under section 19. with these observations the petition is dismissed with costs......be an agriculturist. but the trial court has not gone fully into the question whether in fact the lien subsists. the transferee did not admit his liability to pay to his transferor, as the learned judge seems to think, but to the plaintiff the holder pi the incumbrance over the right transferred. whether or not the vendor's lien subsists will in our opinion depend largely on the circumstances of the transfer - for instance, if the transferee has the right to hold the unpaid money for the protection of his own interest against the incumbrances, there can hardly be a debt due to the transferor in respect of which the lien may be said to subsist. but this question can best be investigated by the trial court in disposing of the pending application under section 19. with these observations.....
Judgment:

1. In view of our decision in Subbaramier v. Venkatachalapathi Aiyar (1940) 2 M.L.J. 515 that a simple mortgagee of agricultural land has a saleable interest therein sufficient to satisfy Section 3(ii)(a) of Madras Act IV of 1938, it would seem to follow that the holder of a vendor's lien in agricultural land is equally qualified to be an agriculturist. But the trial Court has not gone fully into the question whether in fact the lien subsists. The transferee did not admit his liability to pay to his transferor, as the learned Judge seems to think, but to the plaintiff the holder pi the incumbrance over the right transferred. Whether or not the vendor's lien subsists will in our opinion depend largely on the circumstances of the transfer - for instance, if the transferee has the right to hold the unpaid money for the protection of his own interest against the incumbrances, there can hardly be a debt due to the transferor in respect of which the lien may be said to subsist. But this question can best be investigated by the trial Court in disposing of the pending application under Section 19. With these observations the petition is dismissed with costs.


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