High CourtsDivision Bench(1941) 02 MAD CK 0038

M. Varadaraja Pillai and Another vs Rukmani Ammal

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 February 1941 · Citation: AIR 1941 Mad 891(1) : (1941) 54 LW 306 : (1941) 2 MLJ 359

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.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

9 paragraphs · 216 words

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—We agree with Somayya, J., from whose decisions appeal has been preferred that the case is governed

by the decision of this Court in Motam Kotayya alias Prakasam Vs. Singampalli Venkata Punnayya, . That case was decided by a Division Bench

and its decision is binding on us. The learned advocate for the appellant has suggested that the decision should be reconsidered and has asked us

to refer the question to a Full Bench We see no reason why we should adopt this course.

2.

It has been suggested that there is a difference here because in the present case there has not been a final decree only a preliminary decree. The

learned Judge has rightly pointed out that it is the preliminary decree in a mortgage suit which fixes the rights and liabilities of the parties. When a

preliminary decree has been passed time is given to the mortgagor to pay off the decretal amount and redeem the mortgage. The final decree does

not change the position except that it gives the mortgagee the right to sell the property for the amount declared to be due in the preliminary decree.

3.

For these reasons we concur in the decision of the learned Judge, and the appeal will be dismissed with costs.