Skip to content


Natesa Pillay Vs. Munusawmy Naicken and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.313a
AppellantNatesa Pillay
RespondentMunusawmy Naicken and ors.
Cases ReferredSee Palaniappa Mudaliar v. Sadagopa Tevan
Excerpt:
mortgage - assignment--suit by assignee--mistake as to date of mortgage in assignment-deed--right of plaintiff to prove that suit mortgage was assigned. - 1. we are of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to show that the right purchased by veera pillay under exhibit c was the mortgage now sued on, and that the exhibit c was a misdescription. see palaniappa mudaliar v. sadagopa tevan (1911) 2 m.w.n. 133 : 9 m.l.t. 319 : 9 ind. cas. 729. the decrees of the lower court must be reversed and the suit remanded to the court of first instance for fresh disposal according to law. the costs of the second appeal and the costs in the lower appellate court will abide the result.
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to show that the right purchased by Veera Pillay under Exhibit C was the mortgage now sued on, and that the Exhibit C was a misdescription. See Palaniappa Mudaliar v. Sadagopa Tevan (1911) 2 M.W.N. 133 : 9 M.L.T. 319 : 9 Ind. Cas. 729. The decrees of the lower Court must be reversed and the suit remanded to the Court of first instance for fresh disposal according to law. The costs of the second appeal and the costs in the lower Appellate Court will abide the result.


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