McElwaine (SS) CJ:

Two main points are raised on this appeal: first, that owing to an Originating Summons of 1932 between the predecessors in interest of the parties to this dispute being undisposed of, an order for sale under s. 149 of the Land Code cannot be made.

In my opinion a summons for an order for sale is not a suit within the meaning of s. 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The Legislature has provided that a chargee shall have certain rights in case of default of payment. These included distraining for rent and selling the land charged both proceedings requiring the intervention of the Court, but in neither case does the proceeding appear to be a suit.

The Court Order does not confer a right to the money due, it merely ensures that a right shall not be enforced without the leave of the Court. The question has already been settled in Chettiappa Chetty v. Raja Abdul Rashid, (1931- 2) FMSLR, 345.

The second point was that while the appellant and one Meyappa are the registered proprietors of this land, Meyappa is a mere nominee of the respondent.

This point becomes of importance because the appellant claims that of the $20,000 due on the original charge he has p