9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Construction of mortgage-deed for property sale, inclusion of palace buildings in the sale description, interpretation of specific terms in the document, applicability of legal principles to determine property inclusion, objections to terms of sale proclamation.
Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around interpreting a mortgage-deed for property sale. The first defendant argues that the palace buildings are not included in the sale description, while the plaintiff contends otherwise. The document contains general and specific descriptions of the mortgaged property, with a discrepancy regarding the inclusion of palace buildings. 2. The body of the document provides a general description of the mortgaged property without excluding any portion, while the foot of the document details the specific boundaries and components of the village. The specific description does not mention the palace buildings, leading to a debate on whether the general words in the document should be read subject to the precise description provided. 3. The court analyzes the argument that the palace buildings could be considered part of the remaining lands or other areas mentioned in the document. However, applying the principle of ejusdem generis, it is concluded that the residential building cannot be categorized with the items enumerated in the document. 4. Legal precedents are cited to support the interpretation that unless expressly or impliedly excluded, buildings like the palace are presumed to be included in the sale of the property. However, in this case, the court finds an indication in the mortgage-deed that suggests an intention to exclude the zemindar's residence from the security. 5. A subsidiary argument regarding objections to the terms of the sale proclamation is also addressed. The court rules that the objections raised do not demonstrate prejudice to the first defendant, and there is no basis to interfere with that portion of the order at that stage. 6. In the final decision, the court allows the appeal to the extent of amending the proclamation to exclude the palace building from the sale. Each party is directed to bear their own costs of the appeal, concluding the judgment on the construction and interpretation of the mortgage-deed and the property sale description. 7. The judgment is delivered jointly by two judges, Mutha Venkatasubba Rao and Charles Gordon Spencer, with both concurring on the interpretation of the mortgage-deed and the exclusion of the palace buildings from the sale description. The detailed analysis and legal principles applied provide clarity on the decision reached by the court.
|
