Skip to content


Vanheri Manakkal Purushothaman Nambudri Vs. Purumpulanil Sankunni Menon and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in36Ind.Cas.551
AppellantVanheri Manakkal Purushothaman Nambudri
RespondentPurumpulanil Sankunni Menon and ors.
Cases ReferredKuttisseri Illath Raman Namboodri v. Achutha Pishurodi
Excerpt:
malabar law - kanom, redemption of, suit for, by melkanomdar--joinder of janmi as party defendant--order fixing time for payment by plaintiff and sale in default--order for sale not carried out and become barred--jenmi, right of, to sue for redemption--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 11--res judicata--prior and puisne mortgagees--action for redemption by puisne mortgagee, effect of, on mortgagor's right--transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 93, scope of. - .....thereby, but he would then have had the power under section 310(a) of the old code of civil procedure (corresponding to order xxi, rule 89) to apply to have the sale set aside on payment. in this case there was no sale.3. section 91 of the transfer of property act extinguishes only the plaintiff's right to redeem on an order for sale being passed, and it extinguishes the security, i.e., the security of the mortgagee so far as the plaintiff is concerned.4. ordinarily a suit by a melkanomdar does not debar the jenmi from subsequently-suing to redeem, even if he was a party defendant to the melkanomdar's suit when questions of res judicata between co-defendants do not arise vide kuttisseri illath raman namboodri v. achutha pishurodi 14 ind. cas. 415 followed in veerapuda-yan v......
Judgment:

1. We think that the view taken by the lower Courts that the jenmi's title was extinguished by the order for sale obtained in the prior suit by the melkanomdar is not correct. Tlie jenmi could not have worked out his rights in that suit as he was not entitled to pay the redemption money under the decree, and as Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was then applicable, did not permit him to ask the Court for an order for sale as he was not the mortgagee,though he was a defendant. Though he was a mortgagor he could not have applied under the authority of Govinda Targan, C.P. v. Veeran 12 Ind. Cas. 432 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 323: 36 M.k 32 as he was not then the plaintiff.

2. On the order for sale being made at the instance of the mortgagee the jenmi could not apply to have the sale carried out, whatever the rights of the plaintiff might be. If the property had been sold his rights might have been affected thereby, but he would then have had the power under Section 310(a) of the old Code of Civil Procedure (corresponding to Order XXI, Rule 89) to apply to have the sale set aside on payment. In this case there was no sale.

3. Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act extinguishes only the plaintiff's right to redeem on an order for sale being passed, and it extinguishes the security, i.e., the security of the mortgagee so far as the plaintiff is concerned.

4. Ordinarily a suit by a melkanomdar does not debar the jenmi from subsequently-suing to redeem, even if he was a party defendant to the melkanomdar's suit when questions of res judicata between co-defendants do not arise vide Kuttisseri Illath Raman Namboodri v. Achutha Pishurodi 14 Ind. Cas. 415 followed in Veerapuda-yan v. Muthu Karuppa Thevan 19 Ind. Cas. 589: 13 m.l.t. 463 and Appeal Against Order No. 52 of 1910.

5. We allow the appeal and remand the appeal to the lower Appellate Court for deciding the 4th issue and disposing of the appeal according to law. Appellant will get his costs in this Court. Costs in the lower Courts will be provided for in the final decree.


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