SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1940 Supreme(Mad) 521

Doraisami Naicken – Appellant
Versus
Peru Su Aru Periakaruppan Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. Two questions relating to the law of limitation have been argued in this appeal. On the 8th April, 1926 the appellant obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore a preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 4,772 with interest and costs, amounting altogether to Rs. 5,856--6--6, against one Muthu Goundan and his two sons, a period of six months being allowed for redemption. The respondent was impleaded as the fifth defendant in the suit. He had obtained a money decree against the mortgagors and had attached the equity of redemption of the mortgaged properties. The attachment was continuing at the time of the passing of the preliminary decree on the 8th April, 1926. In the month of July 1926 the mortgagors conveyed the mortgaged properties to the appellant in satisfaction of the mortgage debt. Thereupon the appellant went into possession of the properties and remained in possession until 1932 when he was dispossessed by the respondent, who had caused them to be sold in execution of his decree and had become the purchaser at the Court sale. The properties were sold subject to the appellants mortgage and on the 27th October, 1933 the appellant filed an application








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top