Poovanalingam Servai vs Veerayi and Others

Assuming that the circumstances of the payment of Rs. 140 out of the purchase-money by defendant 1 for defendant 2, which are not fully

disclosed by the record before us, are not those in which defendant 1 could be subrogated to any vendor''s charge, this being a suit for partition,

even without any charge the equity arising in defendant 1''s favour from his payment for defendant 2 can properly be enforced by the Court--see

Swan v. Swan (1820) 8 Price 518 : 146 E.R. 1281 and Leigh v. Dickeson (1884) 15 Q.B.D. 60. The plaintiff is a transferee from defendant 2

and is found to have had notice of this payment of Rs. 140 by defendant 1.

We see no sufficient reason to differ from the learned Judge''s decision except that there does not appear to us to be any reason for allowing

interest at a higher rate than 6 pen cent. The interest allowed on the Rs. 140 in defendant 1''s favour from 5th May, 1914 to 22nd July, 1918, will

be reduced to that rate, amounting to Rs. 35-3-0.

In other respects the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay respondent 1''s costs.