Skip to content


Veluchoori Parasanna and ors. Vs. Veluchuri Somu Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.330
AppellantVeluchoori Parasanna and ors.
RespondentVeluchuri Somu Naidu
Cases ReferredMohima Chunder Sein v. Pitambar Shaha
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.....1. the 2nd defendant and one achaya were joint tenants of the plaintiff of certain lands. achaya executed a document by which he purported to relinquish the lands in question to the plaintiff. the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the lauds. the munsif held that the relinquishment did not bind the 2nd defendant and dismissed the suit.2. the subordinate judge held that the relinquishment was effective as regards achaya's interest and gave the plaintiff a decree for a moiety of the lands. the plaintiff has not appealed, and consequently we have not to consider the question, whether the effect of the relinquishment by achaya puts an end to the tenancy of both joint tenants, see sri raja simhadri appa rao v. prattipati ramayya 29 m.p 29. the appellant asks us to restore the decree of.....
Judgment:

1. The 2nd defendant and one Achaya were joint tenants of the plaintiff of certain lands. Achaya executed a document by which he purported to relinquish the lands in question to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the lauds. The Munsif held that the relinquishment did not bind the 2nd defendant and dismissed the suit.

2. The Subordinate Judge held that the relinquishment was effective as regards Achaya's interest and gave the plaintiff a decree for a moiety of the lands. The plaintiff has not appealed, and consequently we have not to consider the question, whether the effect of the relinquishment by Achaya puts an end to the tenancy of both joint tenants, See Sri Raja Simhadri Appa Rao v. Prattipati Ramayya 29 M.P 29. The appellant asks us to restore the decree of the Munsif and dismiss the suit altogether, and referred us to Mohima Chunder Sein v. Pitambar Shaha 9 W.R. 147. We are not prepared to do this. It seems to us that, assuming the 2nd defendant can say that the relation of landlord and tenant continued between him and the plaintiff after the relinquishment by Achaya, the 2nd defendant's interest in the demised premises did not extend to more than a moiety. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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