Skip to main content

Section 79 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882



Section 79 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 

Section 79 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with the priority of mortgages in case of future advances. It states that if a mortgage is made to secure future advances, the performance of an engagement, or the balance of a running account, and it expresses the maximum amount to be secured by it, then a subsequent mortgage of the same property will be postponed to the prior mortgage in respect of all advances or debits not exceeding the maximum, even if they are made or allowed with the notice of the subsequent mortgage. This section aims to protect the prior mortgagee who has agreed to lend more money to the mortgagor in the future, and to prevent the subsequent mortgagee from claiming priority over the prior mortgagee for the amount exceeding the maximum.

Section 79 deals with the priority of mortgages in case of future advances, when the maximum amount is expressed.

  For example, suppose A mortgages his property to B for Rs. 10 lakhs, with a condition that B will lend more money to A in the future, up to a maximum of Rs. 20 lakhs. Later, A mortgages the same property to C for Rs. 15 lakhs, with the notice of the prior mortgage to B. In this case, B will have priority over C, for the amount up to Rs. 20 lakhs, even if he lends more money to A after the subsequent mortgage to C. C will be postponed to B, for the amount not exceeding the maximum.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theories of Punishment

Theories of Punishment Punishment in law serves multiple purposes, and the rationale behind these punishments can be understood through different theories of punishment. These theories form the foundation for justifying punishment and help in shaping law s and sentencing policies. Here’s a detailed explanation of each theory with examples: 1. Deterrent Theory The deterrent theory focuses on preventing crime by imposing severe punishments to create fear among people. The idea is that potential offenders will refrain from committing crimes if they fear punishment. Example : The death penalty or long-term imprisonment for serious offenses like murder or terrorism acts as a deterrent for those considering committing such crimes. 2. Retributive Theory This theory is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" or giving the offender what they deserve. It focuses on vengeance or moral satisfaction, ensuring the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. The goal is not to...
Post a Comment
Read more

PART-2 IMPORTANT MCQ'S OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

PART-2  IMPORTANT MCQ'S OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 1. Hira Nath Mishra Vs. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, is a leading case on:   (A) Judicial review  (B) Right of Cross-examination   (C) Reasoned decision   (D) Public corporation  Answer : (B) Right of Cross-examination Explanation : This case involved the expulsion of some students from a medical college for misconduct without giving them a chance to cross-examine the witnesses against them. The Supreme Court held that this violated the principles of natural justice and quashed the expulsion order. The court observed that the right of cross-examination is an essential element of a fair hearing and cannot be denied arbitrarily.  2 . Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India is related to:   (A) Writ of certiorari   (B) Post-decisional hearing  (C) Tortious liability of State  (D) Lokpal Answer : (B) Post-decisional hearing Explanation : This case involved the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915). Section 53 - Fradulent transfer

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915).  This citation indicates that the case was decided by the Privy Council (P.C.) in 1915, and reported in volume 43 of the Indian Appeals (I.A.), starting from page 151.  The case of Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another was a dispute over the validity of two conveyances of land executed by a debtor, Kishun Benode, to his relatives, Kamta Prashad and Hakim Lal, on 2nd September 1901. The plaintiff, Musahar Sahu, was a creditor of Kishun Benode who had obtained a judgment against him on 5th December 1901. The plaintiff sought to set aside the conveyances on the ground that they were made with intent to defeat or delay his claim, under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The courts gave different verdicts on the two conveyances. The first conveyance, in favour of Kamta Prashad, was set aside by the Subordinate Judge and the High Court, as it was found to be without consi...
Post a Comment
Read more