K. VILASINI & ORS. versus EDWIN PERIERA & ORS.

K. VILASINI & ORS. versus EDWIN PERIERA & ORS.

As the time for deposit of payment was extended by court under Order XXXIV Rule 5 CPC (Kerala Amendment), and appellants waived and accepted the deposited amounts and possession, the mortgage could not be considered foreclosed. Appellants are estopped from challenging the extension of time and the correctness of orders. No merit found in appeal.

Parties
Appellant: K. Vilasini & Ors.; Respondent: Edwin Periera & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Usufructuary Mortgage, Redemption, Foreclosure, Extension of Time for Payment, Estoppel, Waiver of Rights
Property Law Civil Procedure Usufructuary Mortgage Redemption Foreclosure Extension of Time for Payment Estoppel Waiver of Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. Vilasini & Ors.

Appellant

Edwin Periera & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension of time for deposit of amount towards improvements was valid under Order XXXIV Rule 5 CPC as amended by Kerala
  2. 2 Whether the mortgage stood foreclosed for failure to deposit amount in time
  3. 3 Whether the appellants were estopped from challenging the extension of time after accepting amounts and possession

Ratio Decidendi

As the time for deposit of payment was extended by court under Order XXXIV Rule 5 CPC (Kerala Amendment), and appellants waived and accepted the deposited amounts and possession, the mortgage could not be considered foreclosed. Appellants are estopped from challenging the extension of time and the correctness of orders. No merit found in appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs.