Skip to content


Mamambath Pettiyeth Vs. M.M. Cheria Uthalamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in16Ind.Cas.560
AppellantMamambath Pettiyeth
RespondentM.M. Cheria Uthalamma and ors.
Cases ReferredSee Kutti Umma v. Madhava Menon
Excerpt:
mortgage - absence of provision for interest in mortgage deed--execution of separate unregistered document for payment of rent--whether rent can be charged on property--limitation act (xv of 1877), schedule ii, article 114. - .....interest on the mortgage-money at any fixed rate. under exhibit b, the defendant is bound to pay rent. the rent was not charged on the property. the rent cannot be treated as interest due on the mortgage amount and plaintiff cannot have decree on the footing that it can be so treated. the murupat was for two years. after the expiration of that period, the defendant held over the land with the consent of the plaintiff. the terms of the tenancy would no doubt be the same as those contained in exhibit b. but the defendant's obligation to pay rent after the lapse of the two years was not under a registered instrument and article 116 of the limitation act would not, therefore, apply; see kutti umma v. madhava menon 11 m.l.j. 186. the right to the rent would, therefore, be barred after three.....
Judgment:

1. The murupat, Ehxibit B was a distinct transaction from the kanom document, Exhibit A. The latter document does not make provision for the payment of interest on the mortgage-money at any fixed rate. Under Exhibit B, the defendant is bound to pay rent. The rent was not charged on the property. The rent cannot be treated as interest due on the mortgage amount and plaintiff cannot have decree on the footing that it can be so treated. The murupat was for two years. After the expiration of that period, the defendant held over the land with the consent of the plaintiff. The terms of the tenancy would no doubt be the same as those contained in Exhibit B. But the defendant's obligation to pay rent after the lapse of the two years was not under a registered instrument and Article 116 of the Limitation Act would not, therefore, apply; See Kutti Umma v. Madhava Menon 11 M.L.J. 186. The right to the rent would, therefore, be barred after three years. The amount offered as rent by the defendant exceeds the rent due for three years. Plaintiff is nit entitled to recover more than that amount. The decrees of the lower Courts must, therefore, be modified by substituting the amount of Rs. 250 for Rs. 500 fixed by the lower Courts. The 2nd defendant is entitled to his costs in this Court and in the lower Appellate Court, There will be no order for costs in the 1st Court.


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