High CourtsDivision Bench(1917) 12 MAD CK 0005

Subbaraya Chetty vs Nachiar Ammal

Madras High Court · Decided on 20 December 1917 · Citation: AIR 1918 Mad 143(1) : 44 Ind. Cas. 863 : (1918) 7 LW 403

HON’BLE JUDGES
Seshagiri Aiyar, J · Kumaraswami Sastri, 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

8 paragraphs · 185 words
1.

On the finding of the District Judge it is clear that the defendant did receive the money. The learned Judge has, however, found that the suit was

premature because of the terms of the unregistered mortgage bond. Granting that the terms of the bond are binding on the parties, having regard to

the fact that immediately after the suit the money became payable, we think that it is undesirable that the plaintiff should be compelled to institute

another suit for the money. money. The principle of Chinta Hararan Das v. Radha Charan Poddar 37 Ind. Cas. 962 and of the decision of this

Court in Sethrucherla Rama Chandra v. Maharajah of Jeypore 34 Ind. Cas. 411 in which it was held that Courts have power to grant a decree

where a cause of action arose subsequent to the suit, is applicable to this case. Following these decisions and having regard to the special

circumstances of this case, we reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif, except as to costs. Each party will

bear his own costs throughout.