The Taluk Board and Others vs Varadesesha Iyengar and Another

Madhavan Nair, J.—The decision in Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : AIR 1916 Mad. 763, supports the appellant''s case that personal decree for costs cannot be passed against a person who is a non mortgagor in a suit by the mortgagee but in Ramakrishna Ayyar Vs. Raghunatha Ayyar and Another, , it was held that such a decree can be passed, in. Marudachala Nadar Vs. Chinna Muthu Nadar and Another, , and Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : AIR 1916 Mad. 763, was considered and explained by the learned Judges. Though the circumstances were somewhat different, the learned-Judges held that a decree for costs personally against the non mortgagor. can be passed on a mortgage action, In Subramania Ayyar Vs. Swaminatha Ayyar, , the proposition is stated to be an undoubted one, though there is no discussion of the point. I am inclined to agree with the decision subsequent to Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : AIR 1916 Mad. 763, which held that the Courts have a discretion to pass a personal decree against a non-mortgagor. In the present case, the learned Judge has given reasons for passing the decree.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.