Skip to content


Pundi Doraisami Tever Vs. Lakshmanan Chetty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1904)14MLJ285
AppellantPundi Doraisami Tever
RespondentLakshmanan Chetty and anr.
Excerpt:
- 1. assuming without deciding that the defendant was bound to pay to the mortgagor, on the date of sale the amount of mortgage money subject to which the sale was made and that notwithstanding the absolute release given by the mortgagor to the defendant on the 4th july the date of payment of the mortgage amount--the plaintiff was bound to pay the mortgagor the interest between the date of sale and the 4th july following--not paid by the defendant--this suit for damages for breach of defendants covenant to pay the mortgage amount to the mortgagor on the date of sale cannot be sustained. the plaintiff does not aver in the plaint that he paid such interest but only that he gave promissory notes for the interest to the mortgagor which as his first witness says were 'purposely got executed and.....
Judgment:

1. Assuming without deciding that the defendant was bound to pay to the mortgagor, on the date of sale the amount of mortgage money subject to which the sale was made and that notwithstanding the absolute release given by the mortgagor to the defendant on the 4th July the date of payment of the mortgage amount--the plaintiff was bound to pay the mortgagor the interest between the date of sale and the 4th July following--not paid by the defendant--this suit for damages for breach of defendants covenant to pay the mortgage amount to the mortgagor on the date of sale cannot be sustained. The plaintiff does not aver in the plaint that he paid such interest but only that he gave promissory notes for the interest to the mortgagor which as his first witness says were 'purposely got executed and taken with a view that they may be required if litigation arises ' and he has therefore suffered no damage at the date of the suit by reason of the alleged breach of covenant by the 1st defendant which would enable him to succeed in this action (see Judgment in S.A. No. 1253 of.1900). We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs and affirm the decision appealed from on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action for the recovery of damages.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //