High CourtsDivision Bench(1891) 11 MAD CK 0005

Gomaji vs Subbarayappa and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 November 1891 · Citation: (1892) ILR (Mad) 253

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shephard, J · Handley, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 125 words
1.

In our opinion, the judgment of the District Judge is clearly wrong- By the terms of the instrument sued on, the defendants covenanted to pay the

money, and, at the same time, the plaintiff was empowered to sell the property and realize the amount. Had the document been registered, it would

have been competent to the plaintiff either to proceed on the covenant or to sue for sale of the mortgaged property. The decision in Mattongeney

Dossee v. Ramnarain Sadkhan ILR 4 Cal. 83 is distinguishable.

2.

We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal for disposal on the merits. The respondents must pay the costs of this

appeal. Other costs to be provided for in the revised decree.