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

1929 Supreme(Mad) 407

A AYYAR
Dakshinamoorthi Pathan – Appellant
Versus
Krishnasami Kadavaran – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. The plaintiffs application for the passing of a final decree for the sale of the hypotheca in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in his favour on 1st February 1918 fixing the time for payment as 1st August 1918. though allowed by the District Munsif, was disallowed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore on the ground that the petition was barred by limitation under Article 181, Limitation Act. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

2. Original Suit No. 47 of 1917 was a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover money due on two hypothecation bonds, dated 30th November 1898, and 7th November 1914, respectively, the first bond comprising plaint items 1 to 3, while the second comprised plaint items 4 and 5. The mortgagor was defendant 1 and his son defendant 2 and defendant 3 claimed title, as auction, purchaser, to items 4 and 5, while defendant 4 was a private alienee of items 1 to 3. The preliminary decree passed by the First Court is dated 1st February 1918, and the time fixed for payment was 1st August 1918. An appeal preferred by defendant 3 making defendant 4 also as a party respondent along with the plaintiff and defendan

















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