High CourtsDivision Bench

Subban vs Arunachalam

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 April 1892 · Citation: (1892) ILR (Mad) 487

HON’BLE JUDGES
Parker, J · Arthur J.H. Collins, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 85
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

7 paragraphs · 164 words
1.

We think that, u/s 85 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is necessary to make Lakshumanan Chetti a party, as he has an interest in the property

comprised in the mortgage, even though the plaintiff may not ask for a personal decree against him. He is, at any rate, interested in item 4.

2.

The subsequent encumbrancers must also be made parties unless the items of property sold or mortgaged to them have been excluded from the

properties against which plaintiff seeks a decree. It may be that sales or mortgages made with plaintiff''s concurrence have excluded such items

from liability; but, if so, they must be excluded from the suit. It is not clear that such is the case. The decrees of the Courts below must be reversed

and the suit remanded to the Court of First Instance for disposal.

3.

We will give the appellant the costs of this appeal and the other costs will abide and follow the result.