Skip to content


Mayandi Venkatesa Mudali and anr. Vs. Konne Desappa Mudali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad99(1); (1940)2MLJ555
AppellantMayandi Venkatesa Mudali and anr.
RespondentKonne Desappa Mudali
Cases ReferredLachmi Chand v. Bipin Behari
Excerpt:
- .....under section 6(e) of the provincial insolvency act. it seems to me clear that the decree for rent is a decree for the payment of money, notwithstanding the fact that the rent is charged on the holding. the decree in question was passed before the appointment of the ad-interim receiver in the previous insolvency. at the time of the sale, the receiver was apparently not in possession though he had been appointed. the property therefore not only vested in the debtor but was in his physical possession and there was nothing, except his poverty, to prevent him from paying the rent. the property was certainly 'his property' within the terms of section 6(e) of the provincial insolvency act. the case reported in lachmi chand v. bipin behari : air1928cal644 has no application, for in that.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. The question is whether the sale of the appellant's property for arrears of rent under the Madras Estates Land Act operates as an act of insolvency under Section 6(e) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It seems to me clear that the decree for rent is a decree for the payment of money, notwithstanding the fact that the rent is charged on the holding. The decree in question was passed before the appointment of the ad-interim receiver in the previous insolvency. At the time of the sale, the receiver was apparently not in possession though he had been appointed. The property therefore not only vested in the debtor but was in his physical possession and there was nothing, except his poverty, to prevent him from paying the rent. The property was certainly 'his property' within the terms of Section 6(e) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The case reported in Lachmi Chand v. Bipin Behari : AIR1928Cal644 has no application, for in that case, there had been an adjudication and the property no longer vested in the debtor. The view taken by the Courts below is correct and the petition is dismissed with costs.


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