VISCOUNT HALDANE, AMEER ALI, SIR JOHN EDGE, LORD DUNEDIN, VISCOUNT CAVE
RAJA SETRUCHERLA RAMABHADRA RAJU – Appellant
Versus
MAHARAJA OF JEYPORE – Respondent
Judgement
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 3, 1916), affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam.
The suit was brought by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam to enforce a mortgage over land which was situate partly in the district of Vizagapatam and partly within the district, commonly known as the Agency Tracts, which by Act
XXIV. of 1839 is a scheduled district.
The facts and the effect of the decisions in India appear from the judgment of their Lordships.
1919. Feb. 13, 14. Sir William Garth for the appellants. The High Court rightly held that upon the true construction of the mortgage deed of July 4, 1911, the principal was not due until January 4, 1916. The respondent not being entitled at the date of the suit to sell the property for the principal, the High Court wrongly held that the decree for sale could stand. The rights of the parties in a suit depend solely upon the position at the date of the plaint Evans v. Bagshaw (( 1870) L. R. 5 Ch. 340.); Buys v. Royal
Law Rep. 46 Ind. App. 151 ( 1918- 1919) Raja Setrucherla Ramabhadra Raju V. Maharaja of Jeypore 29
Exchange Assurance Corporation ([ 1897] 2 Q.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.