Weerappa Chetty V. Arunaselam Chetty

Present: Mr. Justice Wendt and Mr. Justice Middleton.

WEERAPPA CHETTY v. ARUNASELAM CHETTY.

D. C., Badulla, 2, 102.

Mortgage-Purchaser subsequent to mortgage-Non-joinder in action- Effect of decree--Failure on the part of mortgagee to furnish address to the Registrar-Omission on the part of subsequent purchaser to give notice-Civil Procedure Code, (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889), Chapter XLV1.

Held, that before a mortgage decree can have the conclusive effect given to it by section 644 of the Civil Procedure Code, it must be clearly proved that the mortgagee has complied with the first proviso to that section, and left an address with the Registrar of Lands for service of notices. Peiris v. Weerasinghe 1 followed.

Held, also, that the description of the mortgagee given in to the Registrar at the time of registration of the bond, and entered by him in the Register of Encumbrances, is not such an address as is required by section 644 of the Civil Procedure Code,

ACTION rei vindicatio. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover certain shares of lands. The said shares originally belonged to one Annamalay Chetty, who by deed No. 2, 145

Click Here to Read the rest of this document