Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts

    Kangaya Gurukal v. Kalimuthu Annavi

    Our answer to the reference is in the affirmative. The first sentence of the extract from the mortgage instrument quoted in the order of reference does, in our opinion, contain a promise by the mortgagor to pay on the date named, in which case there shall be a right in the mortgagor to get back his lands.

    The second sentence of the extract provides that in the event of the mortgagor not paying on the due date, but subsequently, he may pay only on the corresponding day of a future year, and there shall then be an obligation on the part of the mortgagee to give up the land.

    The mortgage is therefore a combination of a simple and a usufructuary mortgage, within the meaning of section 98, Transfer of Property Act, and the mortgagee is entitled to a decree for the mortgage money under clause (a) of section 68, and to a decree for sale under section 67, the right to cause the mortgaged property to be sold in default of payment being implied within the meaning of section 58(b) of the Transfer of Property Act.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Kangaya Gurukal v. Kalimuthu Annavi
    (Nov 17, 1903)