N GOVINDASWAMI Vs. R BAKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in O. P. No. 344 of 1980 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in this revision. THE respondent herein, is the respondent in the said Original Petition. THE petitioner is a mortgagor in respect of two mortgages, one dated 29th July, 1974 marked in this case as Exhibit R-5 and the other, dated 7th May, 1975 marked in this case as the Exhibit R-7. Principal amount secured under the first mortgage is Rs. 15,000 and the principal amount secured under the second mortgage is Rs. 10,000. THE rate of interest stipulated under the first mortgage is 12 per cent per annum and the rate of interest stipulated under the second mortgage is 15 per cent per annum. THE respondent is the mortgagee. THE petitioner filed O. P. No. 344 of 1980 under section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act depositing a sum of Rs. 29,000 as the amount remaining due under both the mortgages This quantum, the petitioner arrived at as the correct quantum by stating that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act XXXVIII of 1972, in respect of the mortgage dated 29th July, 1974 under Exhibit R-6. In fact, the petitioner filed O. P. No. 102 of 1980 claiming the benefits under Tamil Nadu Act XXXVIII of 1972, in respect of the mortgage, dated 29th July, 1974 under Exhibit R-6. THE respondent, the mortgagee disputed the quantum and disputed the claim of the petitioner for reliefs under Tamil Nadu Act XXXVIII of 1972. THE Court below nagatived the pleas of the petitioner for relief under Tamil Nadu Act XXXVIII of 1972. THE Court below also dismissed O. P. No. 344 of 1980 not accepting the case of the petitioner that the amount deposited by him represents the correct amount due on the relevant date under the two mortgages. As stated above, this revision is directed against the decision in O. P. No. 344 of 1980. THEre is no further agitation as against the decision in O. P. No. 102 of 1980.

(2.) SECTION 83 of the Transfer of Property Act has got a specific purpose to serve the plain language of that provision indicates. The said section runs thus:

(3.) MR. M. Kumaraswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws may attention to a Judgment of Venkataramana Rao, J., in Narayanaswmi v. Ramaswami1, to state that the question of the correctness of the quantum deposited can be gone into by the Court. In my view, learned counsel has not adverted to the nature of the proceedings regarding which the decision was rendered by the learned Judge. In that case, the question arose in a regular second appeal directed against a first appeal arising of a suit. There is nothing in the decision of the learned Judge to spell out the proposition that under section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act an enquiry and a decision as desired by the petitioner could be gone into and rendered. For my view, I have the support of the Judgment of Harwill, J., in Ramakrishnaiah v. Krushi Vidyalaya Sangam2, where the learned Judge held that such an enquiry is beyond the scope of section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, because the Court has not to give any finding at all on any question when a mortgagee refused to receive the sum tendered and Horwill, J. also referred to the judgment of Venkataramana Rao, J. in Narayanaswami v. Ramaswami1 and pointed out that Venkataramana Rao, J. did not any where in his judgment say that such an enquiry was within the scope of section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.