Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

A. ARUMUGAM CHETTIYAR versus SMT. LOKANAYAKAMMA AND ANR.

Decided
13 February 1996
Judges listed
KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 610 · 1996 INSC 240
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The appellant was put in possession of the house in dispute as a tenant in the year 1971. The landlord mortgaged the house with the tenant by a .deed dated April 28, 1977. The question before the High Court was whether the mortgage - deed resulted in an implied surrender of the appellant's right in the house as a tenant. The trial Court and the High Court have concurrently found that the terms of the motgage,deed conclusively show that there was implied surrender of the tenant's rights. On the said findings the Courts below have directed the eviction of the appellant.

p. 610, margin F

It is not necessary for us to go into the question in detail as the principles have been authoritatively settled by this Court in Shah Matlmradas Magan/al & Co. v. Nagappa Shankarappa Malaga & Ors., AIR (1976) 1565, Gambangi Appalaswamy Naidu & Ors. v. Bhra Venkataramanayya Patra, AIR (1984) SC 1728, Nand Lal & Ors. v. Sukh Dev & Anr., [1987] Supp. SCC 87 and in NemiChand v. Onkar Lal, AIR (1991) SC 2046. The High Court on the basis of the law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned judgments has come to the conclusion that the deed of mortgage in the· present case indicates that there was surrender of tenancy and the appellant wa·s only mortgagee. We do not see any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings reached by the Courts below.

p. 611, margin A

The Appeal is dismissed. No. costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 611, margin B