DOCTRINE OF CLOG ON

EQUITY OF REDEMPTION

Submitted by

R.GOWTHAM

Reg. No. BA0150017

Under the Guidance of

Mr. S.MOHAMMED AZAAD

Assistant Professor

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

(A State University established by Act No. 9 of 2012)
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu 620 009
SEPTEMBER 2017
Mr. S.MOHAMMED AZAAD
Assistant Professor in Property Law
Tamil Nadu National Law School
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu 620 009

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project work entitled CLOG ON EQUITY OF

REDEMPTION is a bonafide record of the research work done by R.GOWTHAM, under
my supervision and guidance. It has not been submitted by any other University for the award
of any degree, diploma, associate ship, fellowship or for any other similar recognition.

Place: Tiruchirappalli

Date:

Signature of the Guide

R. GOWTHAM
Reg. No. BA015017
III B.A., LLB. (Hons.)
Tamil Nadu National Law School
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu 620 009

DECLARATION

I, R.GOWTHAM, do hereby declare that the project entitled CLOG ON EQUITY OF

REDEMPTION submitted to Tamil Nadu National Law School in partial fulfilment of

requirement for award of degree in Under Graduate in Law to Tamil Nadu National Law

School, Tiruchirappalli, is my original research work. It and has not been formed basis for

award of any degree or diploma or fellowship or any other title to any other candidate of any

university.

Counter Signed Signature of the Candidate

Project Guide
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, I take this opportunity to thank my Professor Mr.S.MOHAMMED

AZAAD., from the bottom of my heart who have been of immense help during moments of

anxiety and torpidity while the project was taking its crucial shape.

Secondly, I convey my deepest regards to the Vice Chancellor Kamala Sankaran and

the administrative staff of TNNLS who held the project in high esteem by providing reliable

information in the form of library infrastructure and database connections in times of need.

Thirdly, the contribution made by my parents and friends by foregoing their precious

time is unforgettable and highly solicited. Their valuable advice and timely supervision paved

the way for the successful completion of this project.

Finally, I thank the Almighty who gave me the courage and stamina to confront all

hurdles during the making of this project. Words arent sufficient to acknowledge the

tremendous contributions of various people involved in this project, as I know Words are Poor

Comforters. I once again wholeheartedly and earnestly thank all the people who were

involved directly or indirectly during this project making which helped me to come out with

flying colours.

R.GOWTHAM
OBJECTIVES

This research paper would be on the study of The Doctrine of Clog on Equity of
Redemption.
Therein the study would include the history, evolution and would also analyse the
provision and judicial precedents.
To conclude, the researcher would attempt to sketch the significance of the right of
equality of redemption mortgage transaction.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

What are all the conditions held by the Court as a condition or covenant acts as a clog
on redemption?
What are all the situations where this doctrine can be applied and what are all the
situations when it cant?
Has clog be determined absolutely and explained in any acts or approved legally? Is
yes, where?
Is right of redemption is applicable of the present situation in the society?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology used in this particular article were basically secondary data which were
collected from the internet, books, articles and blogs. These data collected was used to do a
study on the doctrine of clog on equity of redemption. This research paper would basically deal
with the doctrinal aspects of the issues mentioned above.

TENTATIVE CHAPTERISATION:

CHAPTER I:

This chapter will talk about the introduction and going to explain about the clog and the equity
of redemption briefly.

CHAPTER II:

To understand about the clog, it is important to know about the right of redemption. So this
chapter will try to explain about the right of redemption

CHAPTER III:

This chapter will try to explain about the history of the term called clog and when the term
called doctrine of clog did was coined and will try to explain it in brief and also talks about the
major cases which plays a major role in explaining this term.

CHAPTER IV:

This chapter will explain about the doctrine of clog on the equity of redemption and also gives
certain examples and also, mainly about the few situations where it was held by the Court that
the condition or covenant acts as a clog on redemption like covenants restricting the right of
redeem or imposing time limits or hampering the rights to redeem.

CHAPTER V:

This chapter ends it all by giving an explained conclusion about the doctrine and also my views
on this doctrine and certain suggestions.
DOCTRINE OF CLOG ON EQUITY OF REDEMPTION
INDEX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION

2 ORIGINS OR DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS

3 THE RIGHT TO REDEMPTION

4 SECTION 60 OF TOPA

5 THE DOCTRINE CLOG ON EQUITY OF REDEMPTION

6 CAUSES AND ILLUSTRATIONS FOR CLOG ON REDEMPTION

7 LONG TERM MORTGAGES

8 CONDITION OF SALE OF PROPERTY

9 SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT TO POSTPONE REDEMPTION

10 COLLATERAL BENEFIT TO MORTGAGOR

11 CONCLUSION

12 BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION:

Before seeing what the clog is, we can see what is meant by redemption in a mortgage. In a
mortgage, the redemption is the repossessing of the property after paying the debts to the
mortagee. But there are certain limitations for this right of mortgagor by the fact that it come
to existence only when the mortagee decides his exercise his right of foreclosure of the
property. This way, the contact comes to an end only when the mortgage came to an end only
when the debtor exercise his right to redeem back his property after paying the debt or paying
off the loan.

An obligation that continues during the term of the mortgage and beyond, which renders the
property less available in the hands of its owner apart from the realization of the mortgage debt,
it is a clog on the equity of redemption1.

This may happen in rural areas where the people thinking the maxim once a mortgage always
a mortgage as a real issue, but it only means that there can no covenant that modifies the
character of the mortgage agreed between the parties that would stop the mortgagor to redeem
his property back on payment of the principal and respective interests. In Vaanam Movie, the
mortgagee tries to fool the mortgagor by saying that debtor hasnt pay off his debt, which can
be considered as an appropriate example for clog on equity of redemption.

Hence, to determine whether something would or would not qualify as a clog on the right of
redemption is something that cannot be determined absolutely. It has to be settled through a
careful perusal of the mortgage deed, the circumstances surrounding the parties entering into a
mortgage, the amount advanced and nature of the transaction.

ORIGINS OR DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS2:

EQUITY: Equity mean fairness. Back in the middle Ages, in England, there were certain grey
areas where it was observed that the Common Law was inadequate to deliver justice to the
common person there in the region. This led to a directive by the King to appoint Chancellors
in special courts who would go beyond the realm of the law to dole out justice and fairness to

1
S.N. Shukla, The Transfer of Property Act 219 (23 rd ed., 2001).
2
A K R Kiralfy, Historical Introduction to English Law, (Delhi: Universal Law Publications, 4th edition, 1999)
the parties. Such courts were called Courts of Equity3.

Thus, in Common Law, equity is used as a means to sharpen the meticulousness of the law in
order to achieve justice.

REDEMPTION: As mentioned in the introduction part, redemption is nothing but the

repossessing of the property after paying the debts to the mortagee4.

CLOG: An obligation that continues during the term of the mortgage and beyond, which
renders the property less available in the hands of its owner apart from the realization of the
mortgage debt, it is a clog on the equity of redemption.

THE RIGHT TO REDEMPTION5:

In a Mortgage, the mortgagor is the owner who had parted with some rights of ownership and the
mortagee is the one who have the property till the payment of the debt and the right of redemption is
right which he exercises by virtue of his residuary ownership to resume what he has parted with.

Such a right of the mortgagor is called the equity of redemption. The mortgagor, who has parted with
some rights of ownership has a right of ownership and has a right to get back the mortgage deed or
mortgaged property, in exercise of his right to ownership. The right of redemption recognised under the
TP Act is thus a statutory and legal right which cannot be extinguished by any agreement made at the
time of mortgage as part of the mortgage consideration.6 This right is called the right to redeem, and a
suit to enforce it, is called the suit for redemption. Therefore, the scope of a suit for redemption is
primarily to enforce the right to make a payment of the mortgage-money. A claim to redeem a mortgage
actually does not attach to the land, although the decree passed in the suit may ultimately affect
possession which also an interest in land.7

The right to redemption is a statutory right which cannot be fettered by any condition which impedes
or prevents redemption.8 Ordinarily, and in the absence of a special condition entitling the mortgagor
to redeem during the term for which the mortgage is created, the right of redemption can only arise on

3
F.H. Lawson & Bernard Rudden, The Law of Property 15 (Peter Birks ed., 3 rded., 2002).
4
Sir Hari Singh Gour, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 1248 (10 th ed., 2002).
5
Bruce Wayman , The Clog on the Equity of Redemption , Vol.21 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, 459-475 (1908).
6
Shivdev Singh v. Sucha Singh (2000) 4 SCC 326, Para 8, AIR 2000 SC 1935
7
Vora Aminbai Ibrahim v. Vora teherali Mohamed Ali AIR 1998 Guj 31
8
Mohammad Sher Khab v Seth Swami Dayal (1922) ILR 44 All 185
the expiration of the specific period.9

This right of the mortgagor is known as the equitable right to redeem. The right of redemption
to the mortgagor is provided under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This right
becomes alive only after the principal money becomes paid.

This right provided by the Transfer of Property Act is a statutory right which can only be done
away by compliance to the procedure established by law. It would henceforth follow that any
obstruction to this right would be declared as void as a clog on the equity of redemption.

The right to redeem the mortgage is a very valuable right to possessed by the mortgagor. Such a right
to redeem the mortgage can be exercised before it is foreclosed, or the estate is sold, thus where in
exercise of its right to sell the property of defaulting debtor, financial corporations (mortgagee),
accepted the offer of prospective purchaser but no sale deed was executed between the two, the right of
the mortgagor to redeem the property is not lost. The equitable right of redemption is dependent on the
mortgagor giving the mortgagee reasonable notice of his intention to redeem, and on his family
performing his obligations under the mortgage.

The right to redeem follows the interest of the mortgagor, and can be excercised by him and also by
those taking the whole of his interest, whether by assignment inter vivos, or by devolution on death

9
Seth Ganga Dhar v. Shamkar Lal (1959) SCR 509
SECTION 60 OF TOPA10:

Right of mortgagor to redeem - At any time after the principal money has become due,
the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-
money, to require the mortgagee

(a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the
mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee,

(b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, to deliver possession
thereof to the mortgagor, and

(c) at the cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to him or to such
third person as he may direct, or to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by
a registered instrument) to have registered an acknowledgement in writing that any right in
derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished: Provided that
the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by
decree of a Court. The right conferred by this section is called a right to redeem and a suit
to enforce it is called a suit for redemption. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to render
invalid any provision to the effect that, if the time fixed for payment of the principal money
has been allowed to pass or no such time has been fixed, the mortgagee shall be entitled to
reasonable notice before payment or tender of such money. Redemption of portion of
mortgaged property.Nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share only
of the mortgaged property to redeem his own share only, on payment of a proportionate part
of the amount remaining due on the mortgage, except only where a mortgagee, or, if there
are more mortgagees than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acquired, in whole or in
part, the share of a mortgagor.

10
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
According to S. 6011, at any time after the principal money becomes due, the mortgagor has a right of
redemption from the mortgagee, the documents of the property which the mortgagee has as well the
property if the mortgagee is the possessor of such property, as in the case of Sarvjni Prabhu v. Papi
kutty Adiesian 12.

According to sec. 60(3) of TOPA, the mortgaged property can be either re-transfer to him or
any third person, as he directs. It also mentioned that the the mortgagee have to register an
acknowledgement in writing that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the
mortgagee has been extinguished. This right cannot be extinguished except by the act of parties or
by a decree of a court.

It is well stated that the right of the mortgagor to deal with the mortgaged property as well as the
limitation to which it is subject depends upon the nature of this ownership which is not absolute, but
qualified by reason of the right of the mortgagee to recover his money out of the proceedings.

THE DOCTRINE CLOG ON EQUITY OF REDEMPTION:

A mortgage means transferring the interest in an immovable property to a third party as security
for the loan that the party has advanced. The security is redeemable by the transferor when he
pays back the loan or discharges his obligation. If any act is done, or any provision is there
which obstructs the right of redemption on payment of the debt or performance of the
obligation, then it acts as a fetter or clog on the equity of redemption and will be held as void.
This is clearly explained in the case of Stanley v Wilde13.

It is settled law in India by statute that a mortgage cannot be made altogether irredeemable, not
can the right of redemption be made illusory. The test suggest by Pollock14 has, however, been
generally applied in determining whether conditions which directly or indirectly fetter or limit
the right to redeem, violate the doctrine.

Seth Ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal15:

In this case, J Sarkar explained the basis of the right of the court to intervene thus:

11
Transfer of property Act, 1882
12
AIR 2007 Ker 44
13 Santley v wilde, 1899
14
The alternative classicism of classical India, Article by Sheldon Pollock
15
AIR 1958 SC 770
The reason then justifying the courts power to relieve a mortgagor from the effect of his
bargain is its want of conscience. Putting it in a more familiar language, the courts jurisdiction
to relieve a mortgagor form his bargain depends on whether it was attained by taking advantage
of any difficulty or embarrassment that he might have been in when he borrowed the money
on the mortgage. Was the mortgagor oppressed? Was he imposed upon? If he was, then he may
be entitled to relief.

The doctrine does not apply if the transaction is not in its essence a mortgage. Thus, where
the transaction gives an option to purchase property, the sole consideration being the loan
of a sum of money secured on the property during the continuance of the option, the
transaction is the scale of an option, the consideration being the use of the money free of
interest. Thus, in this circumstances, the clog cannot be considered, as there was the
consent of both the parties.

This doctrine also applies to a transaction by which were not then to a transaction by
which the mortgagor transferred his equity of redemption to the transferee in
consideration of a loan; a clause in the said transaction by which the transferee had an
option to purchase, was held void.

The doctrine of clog on the equity of redemption is a rule of justice, equity, and good
conscience. This has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Murarilal v. Dev Karan.16
In this case, the Supreme Court has held that, it is a settled law in England and in India
that a mortgage cannot be made altogether irredeemable, or redemption made illusory.
The law must respond, and be responsive to the felt, and discernible compulsions of
circumstances that would be equitable, fair and just; unless there is anything to the
contrary in the statute. Law must take cognisance of that fact, and act accordingly. In the
context of fast changing circumstances and economic stability, a long term for redemption
makes an illusory mortgage, though not decisive. It should prima facie be an indication
as to how clog on equity of redemption should be judged.17

Though the Transfer of property Act does not apply to Sikkim, the courts should apply
the principle contained in s.60 and strike down a clog on the right of redemption.

16
(1964) 8 SCR 239
17
Pomal Kanji Govindji v. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit AIR 1989 SC 436, P. 448
The term in the mortgage deed that the land is irredeemable for 95 years is a clog on the
equity of redemption. In Shivdev Singh v Sucha Singh 18, the supreme court refused to
interfere with the finding of the High Court holding that on the facts of the case, the
mortgage deed providing a period of 99 years was a clog on equity of redemption.
Whether in a particular transaction there is a clog on the equity of redemption, depends
primarily upon the period of redemption, the circumstances under which the mortgage
was created, the economic and financial position of the mortgagor and his relationship
vis--vis him and the mortgagee, the economic and social condition in a particular point
of time, customs, if any prevalent in the community or the society in which the transaction
takes place, and the totality of the circumstances of the parties, the time, the situation, the
clauses for redemption either for payment of interest or any other sum, the obligation of
the mortgage, to manage as a matter of prudent management; there factors must be
correlated to each other and viewed in a comprehensive whether there are clogs on equity
of redemption. A long term of redemption is not necessarily a clog; whether a particular
redemption operates as a clog is to be considered having regard to the circumstances of
the case. The decision as to what amounts to a clog on the equity of redemption is a
question of fact in each case.

CAUSES AND ILLUSTRATIONS FOR CLOG ON REDEMPTION19:

LONG TERM MORTGAGES: Though, the below mentioned cause is either true
or false, this were mentioned as the cause for the clog in the redemption by the
mortgagee and the cause is nothing but long term mortgage. Long term
mortgages are common in cases of usufructuary mortgages. Every long term
mortgage agreement cannot be said to be a clog on the right of redemption of the
mortgagor. But if a mortgage is for say 100 years, itll go beyond the life of the
mortgagor and seem like a clog on the right to redemption, at least superficially.
The Court also of the same opinion, but has made the stand clear by saying that
only by the virtue of a long mortgage period, the mortgage wouldnt be considered
as a clog. There should be a condition which gives an undue advantage to the
opposite party for the mortgage to be considered as a clog.

18
(2000)4 SCC 326
19
F.H. Lawson & Bernard Rudden, The Law of Property 15 (Peter Birks ed., 3 rded., 2002).
 Vadilal chhaganlal v. Gokaldas mansukh20: In this case, the mortgage agreement
provided that it would subsist for 99 years and the mortgagee would be allowed to
construct any structure on the property without any limit on the cost. The
Supreme Court reasoned that it would be beyond the ability of the mortgagor to
repay the principal money along with the interests and the construction expenses.
It was held that both the conditions amounted to a clog on the mortgagees right
of redemption.

Ramkhilawan dilrakhan ahwashi v. Mullo21: The brief about the case is that the
plaintiff was that a covenant for the payment of principal money after 80 years
and only in the month of Baisakh, was a clog. The Trial Court dismissed the suit
by calculating that the profits from the mortgaged property was sufficient to pay
the interests on the principal. On appeal, the High Court upheld the lower courts
decision.

Balbhaddar prasad v. Dhanpat dayal22: In this case, the property mortgaged for
50 years was worth 9000. The final amount to be paid after deducting the profits
from the property was around two and a half lakhs. The Court held that such an
enormous fund had led the property to be irredeemable and the terms of the
contract were oppressive and unconscionable.

CONDITION OF SALE OF PROPERTY23:

A covenant that a mortgaged property, if not redeemed within a fixed time, would
translate into a sale is a clog. However if there is a separate agreement whereby the
mortgagor executes a sale deed in favor of the mortgagee as an independent transaction,
such sale deed is valid.
Meharban khan v. Makhna24: The mortgage agreement provided that the mortgagee
was to be entitled to possession of the property for 19 years. There was a stipulation
that if the mortgagor paid off his debt, he would be allowed to redeem the property only

20
AIR 1953 Bom 408
21
AIR 1957 MP 200
22
AIR 1924 OUDH 193
23
Mulla, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 656 (solil paul ed., 9 th edition, 2000).
24
AIR 1930 PC 142
 till a limited interest and the residual interest would belong to the mortgagor. It was
further envisaged that on failure of the mortgagor to pay, the property would be
deemed to be sold to the mortgagee permanently. The Court ruled that both
conditions amounted to a clog. It was held that on payment of the full amount due,
the property would be reverted back without any encumbrance.
This principle would also extend to cases where on default of payment, the
property would be deemed to have been foreclosed, amounts to a clog. However
parties are free to stipulate such a condition subsequently after the mortgage
agreement.
Kuddi lal v. Aisha jehan begam: The plaintiff-mortgagor was allowed to redeem
the property back by paying from her own pockets and not through transferring
the property. The Court held that such a covenant was a clog on redemption since
it restrained alienation by the mortgagor.
SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT TO POSTPONE REDEMPTION25
A subsequent agreement which becomes an obstruction to the mortgagee by creating a
personal obligation is a clog on his right to redemption. The reason is that unless the
agreement forms a charge on the property, the mortgagee is not liable to pay any sum
arising from his personal obligation except the mortgage amount.
Sheo Shankar v. Parma: The mortgagor had already executed a usufructuary
mortgage in favor of the mortgagee. He further executed a simple mortgage in order to
borrow more money. A provision in the simple mortgage provided that the mortgagor
was stopped from redeeming the property till the amount in the simple mortgage was
paid. It was held that such a provision was void as a clog.
Hari v. Vishnu: a loan of 1500 was advanced to the plaintiff on mortgage by the
defendant. The mortgage deed provided that 5000 was still to be paid by the plaintiff
on a previous mortgage and stipulated that till both the sums were paid, the plaintiff
was not entitled to redeem the property. The deed was stamped at a value on 6500. It
was held that since both the transactions were clubbed into one, the provision was not
a clog.
COLLATERAL BENEFIT TO MORTGAGOR
A mortgagor may avail of a collateral benefit either during the subsistence of the

25
Sir Hari Singh Gour, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 1248 (10 th ed., 2002).
 mortgage, which is valid, or after the redemption, which in some cases is not valid26.
Noakes & Co. v. Rice27: A covenant in the mortgage agreement stipulated that the
mortgagee would buy all the beer he would consume on his property from the
mortgagor who was a brewer. It was held that the tie was valid during the subsistence
of the mortgage but not beyond redemption. The property must be delivered back
without any tie.
Kreglinger v. New Patagonia Meat and Cold Storage Co. Ltd.28: In this case, the
mortgage was of a term of 5 years with an option to the mortgagor to redeem the
property before completion of the term. The agreement further stipulated that the
mortgagor should sell sheepskins exclusively to the mortgagee as long as both parties
agreed to a fixed price. The mortgagee paid the mortgage before 5 years and filed a suit
for declaring the tie of exclusive selling to be declared as a clog on redemption.
The House of Lords held that the provision of exclusive sale to lenders did not amount
to a clog. It was reasoned that the mortgagee is allowed to stipulate for a collateral
benefit beyond the period of redemption provided that the stipulation is not
unconscionable or unfair.

CONCLUSION:

As we have seen,we cannot determine absolutely which could be considered as whether

something would qualify as clog on the right of redemption. It has to be settled through a careful
perusal of the of the mortgage deed, the circumstances surrounding the parties entering into a
mortgage, the amount advanced and nature of the transaction.

However the doctrine has not escaped without controversy. Sir Fredrick Pollock has made his
disapproval of this doctrine by calling this doctrine as an anachronism. He believed that the
doctrine cannot keep on assuming that the mortgagor is a victimized party in the bargain.
According to him, in the modern age, both parties are at a level playing field and giving a
mortgagor a ground to repudiate his obligations by portraying one of the clauses of the contract

26
Row, supra note 34, at 883.

27
1902 AC 24.

28
1914 AC 25.
as unconscionable, it works against public policy as a whole.

Pollock isnt completely wrong in his analysis of the doctrine. The doctrine was envisioned
at a time when landlords would use their power peasants to enter into unfair agreements
and contracts by virtue of the necessity of the peasants. But with the growth of commerce
and passage of time, such inequality has been more or less abolished. Providing an excuse to
one party to escape his obligations is a bad precedent to set. However these criticisms have not
stopped the courts in India to apply this test. Where a major chunk of the population in India
still works in the agrarian sector and lives under below poverty line without any formal banking
systems, the doctrine still has some prevalence in such situations. It is left at the discretion of
the judiciary to decide in which cases a prudent application of this doctrine lies

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

ARTICLES AND BOOKS REFERRED:

1. S.N. Shukla, The Transfer of Property Act 219 (23rd ed., 2001).
2. F.H. Lawson & Bernard Rudden, The Law of Property 15 (Peter Birks ed., 3rded.,
2002).
3. Mulla, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 656 (Solil Paul ed., 9th edition, 2000).
4. Sir Hari Singh Gour, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 1248 (10th ed., 2002)
5. Wyman, Bruce. "Clog on the Equity of Redemption." Harv. L. Rev. 21 (1907)

WEBSITES REFERRED:

1. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-clog-on-redemption
2. https://www.ipleaders.in/doctrine-clog-redemption
3. http://advocateji.com/what-is-meant-by-clog-on-redemption

CASES REFERRED:

1. Shivdev Singh v. Sucha Singh (2000) 4 SCC 326, Para 8, AIR 2000 SC 1935
2. Vora Aminbai Ibrahim v. Vora teherali Mohamed Ali AIR 1998 Guj 31
3. Mohammad Sher Khab v Seth Swami Dayal (1922) ILR 44 All 185
4. Seth Ganga Dhar v. Shamkar Lal (1959) SCR 509
5. Sarvjni Prabhu v. Papi kutty Adiesian, AIR 2007 Ker 44
6. Santley v wilde, 1899
7. Seth Ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal, AIR 1958 SC 770
8. Murarilal v. Dev Karan, (1964) 8 SCR 239
9. Pomal Kanji Govindji v. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit AIR 1989 SC 436, P. 448
10. Shivdev Singh v Sucha Singh, (2000)4 SCC 326
11. Vadilal chhaganlal v. Gokaldas mansukh, AIR 1953 Bom 408
12. Ramkhilawan dilrakhan ahwashi v. Mullo AIR 1957 MP 200
13. Balbhaddar prasad v. Dhanpat dayal, AIR 1924 OUDH 193
14. Meharban khan v. Makhna, AIR 1930 PC 142