REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

AYYASAMI PILLAI Appellant

V/S

SUBBARAYA PILLAI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ALDERSON V. WHITE [REFERRED TO]
NEW BEERBHOOM COAM COMPANY V. BHULORAM MAHAT [REFERRED TO]
VENKANNA V. VENKATAKRISHNAYYA [REFERRED TO]
BALKISHEN DAS V. LEGGES [REFERRED TO]
CHARAMUDI V. BHAGAWALA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SAHAI V. BHAGWAN DIN [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED SIDDIG V. GHASIRAM [REFERRED TO]
MA MA GYI V. MA NYO PA [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN MUDALIAR V. LAKSHMI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
VENKATARAMA IYER V. RANGANATHA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
KARUPPANNA GOUNDER V. THIRUMALAI GOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
L.MANMOHAN DAS V. SHAIKH BAHA UDDIN [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN V. KOLIANNA GOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
CHUNCHUN JHA VS. EBADAT ALI [REFERRED TO]
RAZIA BEGUM VS. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
BHASKAR WAMAN JOSHI VS. SHRINARAYAN RAMBILAS AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
BHOJU MANDALE VS. DEBNATH BHAGAT [REFERRED TO]
P L BAPUSWAMI VS. N PATTAY GOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
RAM BARAN PRASAD VS. RAM MOHIT HAZRA [REFERRED TO]
RAJAMMA VS. VARADARAJULU CHETTI [REFERRED TO]
FIRM OF MAHADEVA RICE AND OIL MILLS VS. CHENNIMALAI GOUNDAR [REFERRED TO]
MURUGAN VS. JAYARAMA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
C GANESHA MUDALIAR VS. VGNANASIKHAMANI MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
JHANDA SINGH VS. SHEIKH WAHID-UD-DIN [REFERRED TO]
(MIAN) PIR BUX VS. MOHOMED TAHAR [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASAM ALIAS PADMINI VS. RAJAMBAL [REFERRED TO]
GONELA KRISHNAMURTHY VS. KALIDINDI VENKATESWARAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS 2 and 3, who succeeded before the trial Court, but lost their case before the lower appellate Court, are the appellants. The suit giving rise to the appeal was for redemption of a mortgage, or in the alternative, for specific performance of an agreement or reconveyance and for recovery of possession of the suit property.

(2.) THE case of the appellants is as follows:

(3.) THE trial Court framed as many as eight issues touching the various aspects of the case and held that Exhibit A-2 was only a mortgage deed by conditional sale and not a deed of outright sale that consequently, the appellants are entitled to redeem the property after paying the amount due as per Exhibit A-2 subject to scaling down under Act IV of 1938 that the first respondent was a necessary party to the suit, that Balakrishnan was not a necessary party to the suit, that the appellants are not estopped by conduct from claiming redemption the appellants are entitled to redemption and possession of the suit property and in view of this position, the question of granting the relief of reconveyance to the appellants does not arise. On the above findings, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree for redemption and possession in favour of the appellants.

Click here to view full judgment.

AYYASAMI PILLAI Vs. SUBBARAYA PILLAI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address