WALSH
Baghvatham Mahadeva Sastrigal – Appellant
Versus
Kariyakara Marulai Reddiar – Respondent
Walsh, J.
1. Defendant 6 is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 614 alleged to be due on a mortgage, Ex. A, dated 18th February 1910, executed by defendant 1, in favour of plaintiff 1, plaintiff 2s father and defendant 7. Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of defendant 1. Defendant 6 is a subsequent mortgagee under the mortgage, Ex. 2, dated 4th January 1918. He was the only contesting defendant. He had brought a suit on his mortgage. In that suit in execution he purchased the mortgaged property in Court-auction. His defence in the present suit is that the mortgage Ex. A had been discharged by the mortgage, Ex. 1, dated 28th August 1913, which he had himself paid off when he took his own mortgage, Ex. 2, and that the plaintiff and defendant 1 are colluding in this suit. A question as regards non-joinder of parties was also raised. The suit bond being dated 18th February 1910, and the suit having been brought on 27th August 1925, the claim was prima facie barred by time. Three payments were mentioned in the plaint, not specifically as saving limitation but which, if true, would evidently do so. They were on 10th April 1913, 29th August 1
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.