The Madras Law Times Volume 1; Law Notes and Notes of Cases of the Madras High Court and of the English Law Courts (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 Excerpt: ... The fourth condition provided that when the creditor became entitled to and possessed of the property, he Sheikh Hub Ali v. Wajir-un-nissa. should be bound to make provision for the. maintenance of certain malt; members of tlie family to which the mortgagor belonged. At the time when the mortgage of the 11th May 1871 was entered into, and also at the time when the representative of the mortgagee took possession of the property, after the death of Raza Ali, the law governing the matter was Bengal Regulation XVII of 1806; the Transfer of Property Act had not passed. Their Lordships think it clear, as did both the Courts in India, that the mortgage of 1871 was in substance, what it describes itself as being, a mortgage by way of conditional sale. For the Appellant it was suggested that the document might be read as containing two separate and distinct transactions, --first, a mortgage by mere hypothecation: which was not a conditional s: vle, and, secondly, a conditional sale which was not a mortgage. This, in their Lordships' opinion, woidd be to apply an artficial and illegitimate method of construction to a document which can be naturally, and without difficulty construed and applied as a whole. Such being the nature of the transaction, the rights of the parties under the Regulation admit of no doubt. The mortgagee or his representative had the right to take legal proceedings with a view to foreclosure; ami that foreclosure he could have obtained, U after the proper steps had been taken, the representatives of the mortgagor had failed lo redeem within the time limited for that purpose by the terms of the Regulation. But there was no right to take possession of the property without the proceedings prescribed hv law. In entering as he did, therefore, the repre.

R1,796

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles17960
Mobicred@R168pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 Excerpt: ... The fourth condition provided that when the creditor became entitled to and possessed of the property, he Sheikh Hub Ali v. Wajir-un-nissa. should be bound to make provision for the. maintenance of certain malt; members of tlie family to which the mortgagor belonged. At the time when the mortgage of the 11th May 1871 was entered into, and also at the time when the representative of the mortgagee took possession of the property, after the death of Raza Ali, the law governing the matter was Bengal Regulation XVII of 1806; the Transfer of Property Act had not passed. Their Lordships think it clear, as did both the Courts in India, that the mortgage of 1871 was in substance, what it describes itself as being, a mortgage by way of conditional sale. For the Appellant it was suggested that the document might be read as containing two separate and distinct transactions, --first, a mortgage by mere hypothecation: which was not a conditional s: vle, and, secondly, a conditional sale which was not a mortgage. This, in their Lordships' opinion, woidd be to apply an artficial and illegitimate method of construction to a document which can be naturally, and without difficulty construed and applied as a whole. Such being the nature of the transaction, the rights of the parties under the Regulation admit of no doubt. The mortgagee or his representative had the right to take legal proceedings with a view to foreclosure; ami that foreclosure he could have obtained, U after the proper steps had been taken, the representatives of the mortgagor had failed lo redeem within the time limited for that purpose by the terms of the Regulation. But there was no right to take possession of the property without the proceedings prescribed hv law. In entering as he did, therefore, the repre.

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

March 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

March 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 33mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

636

ISBN-13

978-1-130-22884-7

Barcode

9781130228847

Categories

LSN

1-130-22884-3



Trending On Loot