9911796707
TMI Blog1941 (12) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er) for a sum of ₹ 34,488 out of which ₹ 11,694 was directed to be paid in full discharge of the second mortgage referred to above and ₹ 19,680 was to be paid in part payment of the first mortgage. The purchaser, however, failed to carry out these directions and both the mortgage debts remained outstanding when the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act came into force. The mortgagors then brought these suits for redemption of the mortgages, claiming the benefit of the Act as agriculturists and depositing in Court the amount which they alleged to be due under the mortgages when scaled down in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The Court below has passed decrees for redemption as prayed for in both the suits, negati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, it having been held that his liability qua purchaser to pay the mortgage money was a debt within the meaning of the Act, while as against the mortgagor who was not an agriculturist, a decree for the full amount of the debt was passed. In the present case, however, the mortgagors are agriculturists and they seek to redeem the property under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act which (so far as it is material here) provides : At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage) money, to require the mortgagee, (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... co-plaintiffs. The mortgagors were and the purchasers were not agriculturists and the question arose whether the decree as a whole could be scaled down even as against the purchasers. It was held that there was nothing in the Act to prevent the decree being scaled down as a whole and it was pointed out that the Court would not, by so scaling down the decree, be benefiting the non-agriculturist purchaser as the latter might have to refund the portion of the purchase money which as a result of the scaling down, he would not have to pay to the mortgagee. The position here is, in our opinion, very similar. As between the mortgagors who sold a portion of the hypotheca under Ex. II and the purchaser, the sale was free from the encumbrances excep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would stand ultimately deprived of the benefit which as agriculturists they are undoubtedly entitled to claim under the Act. 3. It was then said that the purchaser having agreed with the appellant to pay the amounts which be retained out of the purchase money, decrees should have been passed against him personally for such amounts in these suits without driving the appellant to another suit for the enforcement of such liability. The allegations made in this behalf in the appellant's written statement are by no means clear. What appears to have been pleaded is that even before the sale deed was executed, there was an arrangement between the mortgagors, the purchaser, and the appellant whereby the mortgagors ceased to be liable under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
