|
[1922] Mad 16
|
[1922] Mad 16
|
|
India
|
circa 1922
|
|
|
|
|
Go "If it so happens that I have to sell it (pro vernment revenue, does not render pre perty) out of necessity, I will sell it to you '* emption enforcible whether it is a custo In my opinion the undertaking in that mary right or a right arising out of pri case did not amount to a continued offer vate contract In this case it is neces kept open but only an undertaking to sary for defendant 6 to show that his make an offer when he thinks of selling right of sale is such that the mortgage in the property as in the present case, and favour of the plaintiff is invalid as I think there is neither an offer nor can against his own right A mortgage by there be an acceptance in that case the owner of a house will often end in a However the learned Judge thought that suit by the mortgagee and in Court sale there was an offer and he gave an opport And if the Court sale can be made free of unity for the respondents by calling for defendant 6's right to repurchase under a fresh finding whether there was an ac Ex 1, the right is useless So he has to ceptance of the offer But the finding contend that not only absolute alienation was that there was no completed con but also mortgages by defendant 1 are tract with the result that the appeal was void if they are to affect his right of re allowed But it seems to me that in purchasing it for Rs 60 such a case there is no offer, nor cam Now, the decision in Vasudevan Moosad there be an acceptance of the offer If v Ittirarichan Nair (l), is against this
|
|
|
India - Tamil Nadu
|
circa 1922
|
|
|
|
