Ikkotha vs Chakkiamma and Others

We must take it that the mortgage under which the sixth Defendant claims as well as the sale of the equity of redemption under the money

decree obtained by a third party against the Karnavan, purchased by the sixth Defendant are binding on the tarwad now represented by the

Plaintiff. Nevertheless it is contended on the authority of Erusappa Mudaliar v. Commercial and Land Mortgage Bank, Limited ILR Mad. 377 that

the Plaintiff is entitled to redeem inasmuch as the sale of the equity of redemption was not in a suit for sale brought by the sixth Defendant on his

mortgage. That decision, however, has been dissented from in Sesha Ayyar v. Krishna Ayyangar ILR Mad. 96 and in Kuttan Nayar v. Krishnan

Mussad S.A. No. 641 of 1901. These latter rest on the authority of the Privy Council decision (Raja Kishendatt Ram v. Raja Mumtaz Ali Khan

I.L.R Cal 198) the principle of which is in conflict with the ground on which the decision in Erusappa Mudaliar v. Commercial and Land Mortgage

Bank, Limited I.L.R Mad. 377 rests.

We cannot, therefore, follow the last decision. The Plaintiff is not entitled to redeem.

The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.