Skip to content


C. Vencatachariar and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.357
AppellantC. Vencatachariar and anr.
RespondentSrinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Excerpt:
mortgage - usufructuary mortgage of an ijara lease for a term--mortgaged lands in possession of occupancy tenants--eviction of tenants for arrears of rent--purchase of the holding by mortgage--assignment by mortgagee of lands thus acquired, whether binding on mortgagor--'accretions or accessions' to property--whether mortgagee is trustee to mortgagor in respect of such accretions--duties of mortgagee--transfer of property act (iv of 1882), sections 63, 108--trusts act (ii of 1882), section 90. - .....by exhibit-a to admit tenants to items nos. 1 to 22 when they became vacant, we think he had no right to admit himself which he did by including these lands in his patta. a mortgagee is in the position of a trustee and cannot grant leases or make other dispositions of the mortgaged property in his own favour and of such a kind as to give rise to a possible conflict between his interest and his duty. we also think the district judge is right in coming to the conclusion that the 1st defendant did not part with his interest in these items by transferring them to the pattah of his undivided son. we think that where a person in the position of a trustee makes a grant of the trust property to his undivided son the relation of the parties is sufficient to raise the presumption that he is.....
Judgment:

1. We think the decision of the lower Court is right. Assuming that the 1st defendant was entitled under the powers conferred upon him as mortgagee by Exhibit-A to admit tenants to items Nos. 1 to 22 when they became vacant, we think he had no right to admit himself which he did by including these lands in his patta. A mortgagee is in the position of a trustee and cannot grant leases or make other dispositions of the mortgaged property in his own favour and of such a kind as to give rise to a possible conflict between his interest and his duty. We also think the District Judge is right in coming to the conclusion that the 1st defendant did not part with his interest in these items by transferring them to the pattah of his undivided son. We think that where a person in the position of a trustee makes a grant of the trust property to his undivided son the relation of the parties is sufficient to raise the presumption that he is himself interested and to bring the case within the mischief of the rule.

2. These observations also apply to item No. 23 which was granted by the 1st defendant on cowle to his son the 2nd defendant.

3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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