Skip to content


Nagathal and ors. Vs. V. Arumugam Pillai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in79Ind.Cas.40
AppellantNagathal and ors.
RespondentV. Arumugam Pillai and ors.
Cases ReferredThevaraya Beddi v. Venhatachalam Pmdither
Excerpt:
transfer of property act (iv of 1882) sections 88, 84 - mortgage--redemption--deposit in court--interest, cessation of--mesne profits, right as to. - .....deposited by plaintiff in court under section 83, transfer of property act, to the credit of the mortgage heirs. owing to quarrels among the heirs, the amount was not drawn, but the amount was allowed by plaintiff to remain in deposit until his suit for redemption was decreed. he had thus done all he could to enable the mortgage to draw the amount, as the money was not withdrawn by him before the heirs could settle their disputes, as was the case in thevaraya beddi v. venhatachalam pmdither 37 ind. cas. 444 : 40 m. 804 : 4 l.w. 433 : 31 m.l.j. 548 : (1916) 2 m.w.n. 321 : (1916)20 m.l.t. 403. in this case, therefore, interest ceased to run from the date of the deposit and the subordinate judge was right in allowing mesne profits to plaintiff. this being so, his order as to costs must.....
Judgment:

1. In this ease the mortgage-money was deposited by plaintiff in Court under Section 83, Transfer of Property Act, to the credit of the mortgage heirs. Owing to quarrels among the heirs, the amount was not drawn, but the amount was allowed by plaintiff to remain in deposit until his suit for redemption was decreed. He had thus done all he could to enable the mortgage to draw the amount, as the money was not withdrawn by him before the heirs could settle their disputes, as was the case in Thevaraya Beddi v. Venhatachalam Pmdither 37 Ind. Cas. 444 : 40 M. 804 : 4 L.W. 433 : 31 M.L.J. 548 : (1916) 2 M.W.N. 321 : (1916)20 M.L.T. 403. In this case, therefore, interest ceased to run from the date of the deposit and the Subordinate Judge was right in allowing mesne profits to plaintiff. This being so, his order as to costs must also stand.

2. Second Appeal No. 1396 of 1921 is dismissed with costs of the plaintiff.

3. Second Appeal No. 1397 of 1921 is dismissed for the same reasons but without costs.


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