Skip to content


In Re: Jilumudu Venkureddi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 142 of 1953
Judge
Reported in(1954)IIMLJ88
ActsTransfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 84
AppellantIn Re: Jilumudu Venkureddi
Advocates:K. Umamaheswaram, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredSitaram v. Ramrao
Excerpt:
- - the learned judge held that the mortgagee was perfectly entitled to refute to accept the amount deposited, firstly because the 9th defendant's title was not finally upheld till the decision of this court on 26-7-1949 and secondly, because the 9th defendant's deposit was not unconditional as he attached to it a condition that if the plaintiif accepted the deposit he should release the portion of the hypotheca purchased by him......refute to accept the amount deposited, firstly because the 9th defendant's title was not finally upheld till the decision of this court on 26-7-1949 and secondly, because the 9th defendant's deposit was not unconditional as he attached to it a condition that if the plaintiif accepted the deposit he should release the portion of the hypotheca purchased by him. we agree with the learned judge that on both the grounds the plaintiff was justified in not accepting the deposit and therefore the trial court erred in disallowing interest from the date of the alleged deposit.3. it is contended by mr. umamaheswaram that the 9th defendant's title was declared by the decree in o. s. no. 47 of 1944, but that was not a final declaration as an appeal had been filed to this court. apart from this, we.....
Judgment:

1. The only Question in this appeal against the judgment of Subba Rao J. disposing of App. No. 722 of 1947 is whether interest ceased to run on the amount deposited by the 9th defendant (who is the appellant before us) into court on 31-8-1943. He was added as a party to the suit which was on a mortgage. He claimed to have purchased a portion of the hypothecs from defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. But there was a dispute as to the validity of the sale in his favour. The deposit was made by the appellant subject to the condition that the plaintiff should release the property purchased by him from the mortgage. Eventually, in O. S. No. 47 of 1944, the title of the ninth defendant was upheld. But against the decision in that suit there was an appeal to this court, and it was only on 26-7-1949 that the appeal was finally disposed of.

2. The question in these circumstances is whe-ther the plaintiff was justified in not accepting the deposit. The learned Judge held that the mortgagee was perfectly entitled to refute to accept the amount deposited, firstly because the 9th defendant's title was not finally upheld till the decision of this court on 26-7-1949 and secondly, because the 9th defendant's deposit was not unconditional as he attached to it a condition that if the plaintiif accepted the deposit he should release the portion of the hypotheca purchased by him. We agree with the learned Judge that on both the grounds the plaintiff was justified in not accepting the deposit and therefore the trial court erred in disallowing interest from the date of the alleged deposit.

3. It is contended by Mr. Umamaheswaram that the 9th defendant's title was declared by the decree in O. S. No. 47 of 1944, but that was not a final declaration as an appeal had been filed to this court. Apart from this, we think that the condition imposed by the 9th defendant appellant precluded him from getting the benefit of the cessation of interest. We agree with the decision in -- 'Sitaram v. Ramrao', (A), on this point.

4. The appeal is dismissed.


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