Skip to content


Musunuri Venkatanarayana Vs. Tennamani Ramanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad945a
AppellantMusunuri Venkatanarayana
RespondentTennamani Ramanna
Cases ReferredSrimantha Seal v. Bindubasini Dasi
Excerpt:
- .....9 m. l. t. 173 are distinguishable on the ground that the mortgagor seeks possession. as to the cases relating to mortgagee's suits for sale, it is true that some cases lay down that, when the joinder has been made and a decree was passed on the paramount title, it is not merely an irregularity which vitiates the finding. no case lays down that the defendant is bound to raise the question relating to the paramount title. we are not able to agree with the decision in srimantha seal v. bindubasini dasi : air1924cal138 where no reasons are given for the view taken.3. the letters patent appeal is dismissed.4. this appeal came on for final hearing on 4th february 1927.judgment5. the plaint alleged common enjoyment by the family from 1905 to 1919 and this was not denied by the written.....
Judgment:

1. (This appeal first came on for hearing on 26th and 27th January 1927).

2. We agree with the view taken by Devadoss, J., of the cases cited by the appellant; those relating to mortgagors' suits for redemption and possession ( such as In re Krishnaswami Pathan [1910] 9 M. L. T. 173 are distinguishable on the ground that the mortgagor seeks possession. As to the cases relating to mortgagee's suits for sale, it is true that some cases lay down that, when the joinder has been made and a decree was passed on the paramount title, it is not merely an irregularity which vitiates the finding. No case lays down that the defendant is bound to raise the question relating to the paramount title. We are not able to agree with the decision in Srimantha Seal v. Bindubasini Dasi : AIR1924Cal138 where no reasons are given for the view taken.

3. The Letters Patent appeal is dismissed.

4. This appeal came on for final hearing on 4th February 1927.

Judgment

5. The plaint alleged common enjoyment by the family from 1905 to 1919 and this was not denied by the written statement. There is nothing in the new point. No change need be made in the judgment.


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