TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Property Charge Takes Priority over No Notice Purchase</h1> <h3>Arumilli Surayya Versus Pinisetti Venkataramanamma and Ors.</h3> Arumilli Surayya Versus Pinisetti Venkataramanamma and Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Enforceability of charge against property purchased without notice.2. Applicability of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act to auction sales.3. Rights of an auction purchaser in comparison to a private purchaser.4. Effect of equities on assignees and purchasers for value without notice.5. Enforcement of charge against property transferred for consideration without notice.Analysis:1. The plaintiff sought to enforce a charge against a property purchased by the appellant without notice. The appellant contended that his rights should not be subject to the charge as it was prior to the sale. The trial court dismissed the appeal, stating that even without notice, the appellant's rights would be subject to the charge due to its priority.2. The uncertainty arose regarding whether a sale without notice would be subject to a prior charge. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act was cited, which states that a charge cannot be enforced against a purchaser without notice. However, the charge in this case predates the amendment introducing this clause. Previous cases were referenced, but their applicability was questioned.3. The appellant acquired the property through a court auction, not a private sale. It was argued that Section 100 does not apply to auction sales based on legal provisions and definitions. The rights of an auction purchaser were compared to those of a private purchaser, highlighting the differences in their positions regarding equities.4. The principle was established that assignees take subject to equities of the assignor, unless they are purchasers for value without notice. Trustees in bankruptcy and judgment creditors are not considered purchasers and are subject to prior equities. This principle was supported by legal authorities.5. The appellant's argument that he could rely on his mortgage if not on the sale was doubted. Even if he could fall back on the mortgage, Section 100 would not assist him, as it prohibits the enforcement of a charge against a property transferred for consideration without notice. The appellant, if considered a simple mortgagee, would not be deemed to have the property in his possession.6. The appeal was ultimately dismissed with costs, as the appellant failed to establish his position regarding the charge and the property purchased without notice. The judgment emphasized the legal principles surrounding equities, notice, and the enforceability of charges against properties transferred for consideration without notice.
TaxTMI 