Skip to content


M. Veeresalingam and ors. Vs. P. Kondayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad430
AppellantM. Veeresalingam and ors.
RespondentP. Kondayya
Cases Referred and Pahlad Lal v. Laraiti
Excerpt:
- t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence. it is challenged only on the ground that it is violative of articles 14 and..........j.1. the only point raised before me is whether the mortgage is void on the ground that its registration was effected by a fraud on the registering officer, inasmuch as the mortgagor intentionally included therein for purposes of registration property which did not belong to him. there is no allegation that the mortgagee was aware of the fraud and shared in it. in these circumstances i must accept the ruling of a bench of this court in venkata lakshmikantaraju garu v. pada venkata jaganadha raju garu a.i.r. 1924 mad. 281 following harendra lal roy chowdhury v. haridasi bibi a.i.r. 1914 p.c. 67 biswanath prasad v. chandra narayan chowdhury a.i.r. 1921 p.c. 8 and pahlad lal v. laraiti (1918) 41 all. 22 that where no collusion by the mortgagee to assist a fraud by the mortgagor in.....
Judgment:

Wallace, J.

1. The only point raised before me is whether the mortgage is void on the ground that its registration was effected by a fraud on the registering officer, inasmuch as the mortgagor intentionally included therein for purposes of registration property which did not belong to him. There is no allegation that the mortgagee was aware of the fraud and shared in it. In these circumstances I must accept the ruling of a Bench of this Court in Venkata Lakshmikantaraju Garu v. Pada Venkata Jaganadha Raju Garu A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 281 following Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhury v. Haridasi Bibi A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 67 Biswanath Prasad v. Chandra Narayan chowdhury A.I.R. 1921 P.C. 8 and Pahlad Lal v. Laraiti (1918) 41 All. 22 that where no collusion by the mortgagee to assist a fraud by the mortgagor in respect of the registration of the document has bean made out, the registration is not invalid, at least so far as the interests of the mortgagee are concerned. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is, therefore, right and this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. Time for payment is extended up to 16th April, 1924.


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