Skip to content

Poovanalingam Servai Vs. Veerayi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported in(1931)61MLJ399
AppellantPoovanalingam Servai
RespondentVeerayi and ors.
Cases Referred and Leigh v. Dickeson
- .....appellant will pay respondent 1's.....

1. 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.

2. 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.

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

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