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
6 paragraphs · 117 wordsWe think that the District Judge was right in holding that the deposit intended by Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act should be made
unconditionally, and that, therefore, the District Munsif was wrong in accepting the deposit. Putting the deposit aside, Mr. Rama Rau argues that
his client is still entitled to his remedies on the mortgage. But the decree of the District Munsif is not a mortgage decree and the appellant did not
appeal against it. We could not, therefore, modify it to the prejudice of the respondents if, in other respects, we thought that the plaintiff was
entitled to ask for a mortgage decree.
This second appeal is dismissed with costs.