AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Patanjali Sastri, J.—The only point of law taken is that the plaintiff mortgagee having purchased part of the hypotheca in pro tanto discharge
of the debt, the debt itself must be considered to have been split up and so is no longer liable to be scaled down on the analogy of cases relating to
the splitting up of debts by the debtors executing different documents for portions thereof. It is difficult to see how those decisions are applicable
here. What has happened is a reduction of the debt by transfer of a portion of the hypotheca to the creditor himself, and the balance remaining due
is the same old debt reduced by a payment. The security may have been split up in the sense that the entire balance may not be recover-able from
the properties remaining in the hands of the mortgagors having regard to Section 60, T. P. Act, but this does not affect the identity of the debt or its
liability to be scaled down as before. The appeal is dismissed with costs of respondents 1, 2, 6 and 7. (Leave refused).