Skip to content


Muniappa Naik and ors. Vs. Subramania Ayyan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad437
AppellantMuniappa Naik and ors.
RespondentSubramania Ayyan
Cases Referred and Kasinath Das v. Sadasiv Patnaik I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, sections 268, 274--attachment of mortgage-debt--suit by purchaser on mortgage. - .....the irregularity was material or that plaintiff has been prejudiced thereby.3. it is next contended that the document contains no provision for interest post diem, and that consequently the claim is one for damages and barred under article 116 of the limitation act. but on the true construction of the document the last clause appears to provide for interest to date of payment and to make the same a charge on the property; and as interest is not asked for at the enhanced rate, there is no question of reasonable compensation under section 74 of the contract act, nor is the suit barred under the limitation act.4. this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. We agree with the learned Judges who decided the cases of Debendra Kumar Mandel v. Rup Lall Dass I.L.R. 12 Cal. 546 and Kasinath Das v. Sadasiv Patnaik I.L.R. 20 Cal. 805

2. The object of attachment is to take the property out of the disposition of the judgment--debtor. Though the omission to attach under Section 274 of the Code of Civil Procedure was an irregularity, we are notable to hold that the irregularity was material or that plaintiff has been prejudiced thereby.

3. It is next contended that the document contains no provision for interest post diem, and that consequently the claim is one for damages and barred under Article 116 of the Limitation Act. But on the true construction of the document the last clause appears to provide for interest to date of payment and to make the same a charge on the property; and as interest is not asked for at the enhanced rate, there is no question of reasonable compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act, nor is the suit barred under the Limitation Act.

4. This appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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