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

1920 Supreme(Mad) 57

S.AIYAR, SPENCER
Ameenammal – Appellant
Versus
Meenakshi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. (Both plaintiff and defendant are women). The facts out of which this suit has arisen may be shortly stated thus. The plaintiff was the simple mortgagee of certain lands under a bond of 1899 executed by third persons to her predecessors-in-title. She hypothecated that hypothecation right and other properties to the defendant in 1908 for Rs. 200 The hypothecated hypothecation right became barred in 1911, owing to a suit not having been brought against the third persons either by the plaintiff (the mortgagee under it) or by the defendant (who obtained transfer of that mortgage from plaintiff by way of security). Then the defendant brought a suit in 1915 against the plaintiff on her (defendants) own mortgage of 1903 for recovery of the amount due to her. The defendant in that suit, (namely, the present plaintiff) pleaded that the present defendant (plaintiff in that suit) having by her default failed to sue for and recover from the third persons the money due under the bond of 1899 left with the defendant as security, she (the defendant) was liable to account to the plaintiff for much more than the amount sued for, on the bo






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