Privy Council

Jamna Das vs Pandit Ram Autar Pande and others

Privy Council · Decided on 2 November 1911 · Citation: (1911) 39 IndApp 7 : 13 IndCas 304

HON’BLE JUDGES
Macnaghten, Robson, Johan Edge, Ameer Ali, JJ.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 113 words

Macnaghten, J. 1. This is a perfectly plain case. The action is brought by a mortgagee to enforce against a purchaser of the mortgaged property an undertaking that he entered into with his vendor. The mortgagee has no right to avail himself of that. He was no party to the sale. The purchaser entered into no contract with him, and the purchaser is not personally bound to pay this mortgage-debt. Therefore, he is not a person from whom, in the words of the 90th Section of the Transfer of Property Act, "the balance is legally recoverable." 2. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.