Skip to content


Shiva Devi Vs. Jaru Heggade and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad290
AppellantShiva Devi
RespondentJaru Heggade and ors.
Cases ReferredRaghu Nath Das v. Ashraf Husain Khan I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 111 - transfer of property act--act iv of 1882, sections 2, 76--waste by mortgagee in possession--possession after date fixed for payment--interest. - - the question is one of procedure and the estimation of the loss caused to the mortgagor by the failure of the mortgagee to make necessary repairs is an item which must be considered in determining the accounts in settlement of the mortgage. 3. we think the subordinate judge rightly held that as the mortgagee continued in possession after 13th june 1878 the profits must be regarded as having been enjoyed in......das v. ashraf husain khan i.l.r. 2. all. 252. we do not think the case has any application. the point here raised was not there taken and that decision was prior to the passing of the transfer of property act. we agree with the sub-judge that section 76 applies. the question is one of procedure and the estimation of the loss caused to the mortgagor by the failure of the mortgagee to make necessary repairs is an item which must be considered in determining the accounts in settlement of the mortgage.2. it was a paramount duty for the mortgagee to make such necessary repairs, and we cannot accept as valid the excuse that to do so would diminish his interest or profits.3. we think the subordinate judge rightly held that as the mortgagee continued in possession after 13th june 1878 the.....
Judgment:

1. The first point raised is that the set-off was wrongly allowed, and in support of this contention we were referred to the decision in Raghu Nath Das v. Ashraf Husain Khan I.L.R. 2. All. 252. We do not think the case has any application. The point here raised was not there taken and that decision was prior to the passing of the Transfer of Property Act. We agree with the Sub-Judge that Section 76 applies. The question is one of procedure and the estimation of the loss caused to the mortgagor by the failure of the mortgagee to make necessary repairs is an item which must be considered in determining the accounts in settlement of the mortgage.

2. It was a paramount duty for the mortgagee to make such necessary repairs, and we cannot accept as valid the excuse that to do so would diminish his interest or profits.

3. We think the Subordinate Judge rightly held that as the mortgagee continued in possession after 13th June 1878 the profits must be regarded as having been enjoyed in.lieu of interest.


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