Skip to content


Chakka Subbiah Vs. Maddali Lakshminarayana and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR29Mad298
AppellantChakka Subbiah
RespondentMaddali Lakshminarayana and anr.
Excerpt:
declaratory decree - not to be given when suit is for cancellation and when no consequential relief prayed. - - but as at the date of the suit, according to the view taken by the lower appellate court, the plaintiff was entitled to consequential relief and failed to claim this' relief, the declaration cannot be upheld......have thought it open to treat the suit as one for a declaration; but as at the date of the suit, according to the view taken by the lower appellate court, the plaintiff was entitled to consequential relief and failed to claim this' relief, the declaration cannot be upheld. we set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the district munsif. we make no order as to costs.
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff (the mortgagor) sued for the cancellation of a mortgage deed on the ground of fraud.

2. The Court of First Instance held that there was no fraud and dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court also hold that there was no fraud but in effect made a declaration in the plaintiff's favour that the mortgage-deed was not a security for Rs. 300 but only for Rs. 130. As the lower Appellate Court found no fraud it ought to have affirmed the decree of the Court of First Instance dismissing the suit.

3. The lower Appellate Court appears to have thought it open to treat the suit as one for a declaration; but as at the date of the suit, according to the view taken by the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff was entitled to consequential relief and failed to claim this' relief, the declaration cannot be upheld. We set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif. We make no order as to costs.


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