Skip to content


Taluk Board, Chidambaram and ors. Vs. Varadesesha Iyengar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad226
AppellantTaluk Board, Chidambaram and ors.
RespondentVaradesesha Iyengar and anr.
Cases ReferredVenugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao
Excerpt:
- .....v. padmanabha rao (1916) 3 a.i.r. 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 v. raghunatha ayyar : air1931mad272 it was held that such a decree can be passed. in rajagopalaswami naicken v. palanisaml chettiar : air1932mad155 , venugopalachariar v. padmanabha rao (1916) 3 a.i.r. 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 subramanin ayyar v. swaminatha ayyar : air1935mad121 the proposition is stated to be an undoubted one, though there is no discussion of.....
Judgment:

Madhvan Nair, J.

1. The decision in Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. 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 v. Raghunatha Ayyar : AIR1931Mad272 it was held that such a decree can be passed. In Rajagopalaswami Naicken v. Palanisaml Chettiar : AIR1932Mad155 , Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. 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 Subramanin Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar : AIR1935Mad121 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 (1916) 3 A.I.R. Mad 763 which held that the Courts have a discretion to pass a personal decree against a non-mortgagor.

2. In the present case, the learned Judge has given reasons for passing the decree. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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