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

1911 Supreme(Mad) 289

ABDUR RAHIM
The Rajah of Kalahasti – Appellant
Versus
Rajah Kumara Venkata Perumal Raj Bahadur Varu, Minor by guardian Mr. W. A. Vardachariar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. There can be no doubt that the appellants contention, that the decree in question is a decree for payment of money, must prevail. The decree directs "that the defendant do pay plaintiffs Rs. 91,288-9-11 with interest at one per cent, per mensem from date of plaint (7th November 1884) to date of payment if payment be made within six months from this date, viz., on or before 17th June 1885; that if payment be not made within six months from this date (17th December 1884) then up to the 17th June 1885 from date of plaint interest shall be at one per cent, per mensem, and thereafter at 1/2 per cent, per mensem; that the plaintiffs shall have their costs with interest at 1/2 per cent, per mensem from this date and that the property mortgaged be held liable to this decree." It was passed in 1884 after the passing of the Transfer of Property Act. Under the Act the proper form of a mortgage decree is that given in Form No. 75, Schedule D, of the Civil Procedure Code. The decree which we are asked to interpret is not in that form, and the question is what is the proper meaning of the decree. It seems to us that the plain meaning of the decree is that the defendant






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