AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We do not think that the order of the Court below can be supported. The present appellant, who was the successful party in the mortgage suit,
which was defended at every stage by the present respondents, was entitled to have a personal decree against the defendants for his costs in that
suit. He sought to have the decree amended so as to give him such personal decree, but this Court decided see report of the case in Kamalammal
v. Komandur Narasimhacharlu 30 M.K 464 : 2 M.L.T. 359 that the application was premature and that such a decree could only be given if the
sale proceeds should prove insufficient to satisfy the amount due under the mortgage including costs. The property has now been sold and has
proved insufficient.
The appellant is, we think, entitled, under Order XXXIV, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to now have a personal decree against the
respondents for the amount of costs not covered by the sale-proceeds, viz., Rs. 223-0-11, with costs throughout.