Skip to content


Syed Oomer Sahib Vs. Gopaul and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Mad12; 82Ind.Cas.454; (1924)47MLJ350
AppellantSyed Oomer Sahib
RespondentGopaul and ors.
Cases ReferredLatifa Bi v. Mottai Ammal
Excerpt:
.....borrower whose mortgage has invoked section 69 of the transfer of property act, is to file a civil suit and in such suit the court has power to grant injunction and to impose condition for the grant thereof--section 17; [a.p. shah c.j., f.m. ibrahim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] proceedings under section 17 power of the tribunal to pass any interim order held, once the possession of the secured asset is taken, there would be no occasion for the tribunal to order redelivery of possession till final determination of the issue. in other words, it is only when the tribunal comes to the conclusion that any of the measures, referred to in section 13 (4) taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder, then only the..........at the time the act came into force the defendant can be described as 'a tenant against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted.' it is not contended that those words can beer the extreme meaning that any tenant against whom a suit in ejectment had ever been instituted--a suit which might have been brought to a completion by execution, and ejectment--is within these words of section 9; but it is contended that it applies to a case where the suit in ejectment has resulted in judgment but has not been executed or completed by the process of ejectment. it seems to me that that contention is right and that the tenant intended by the section is a person who is threatened with ejectment as the result of legal proceedings instituted against him but has not in pursuance of those.....
Judgment:

Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.

1. In this case (Civil Revision Petition No. 21 of 1923) the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 125 of 1921 in the Small Cause Court applied under Section 9 of the Madras Act III of 1922 for an order directing the plaintiff to sell the land in the suit. The sole question is whether at the time the Act came into force the defendant can be described as 'a tenant against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted.' It is not contended that those words can beer the extreme meaning that any tenant against whom a suit in ejectment had ever been instituted--a suit which might have been brought to a completion by execution, and ejectment--is within these words of Section 9; but it is contended that it applies to a case where the suit in ejectment has resulted in judgment but has not been executed or completed by the process of ejectment. It seems to me that that contention is right and that the tenant intended by the section is a person who is threatened with ejectment as the result of legal proceedings instituted against him but has not in pursuance of those proceedings been actually ejected. It seems to me immaterial whether or not the proceedings resulted in a decree which might lead but has not led to an actual ejectment, of the tenant. This is in accordance with the view expressed by the late Chief Justice and my brother Wallace in Kanniappa Chettiar v. Ramachandraiyar : (1924)46MLJ407 and I agree with them in thinking the case in Latifa Bi v. Mottai Ammal : AIR1923Mad320 was wrongly decided. The answer to the reference, therefore, be in the affirmative.

Ramesam, J.

2. I agree.

Wallace, J.

3. I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.


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