Skip to content


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

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in174Ind.Cas.784
AppellantThe Taluk Board and ors.
RespondentVaradesesha Iyengar and anr.
Cases ReferredVenugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao
Excerpt:
practice - costs--butt by mortgagee--personal decree for costs against non-mortgagor it can be passed. - .....m.l.j. 120 : 30 ind. cas. 188 : a.i.r. 1916 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 naicker v. palaniswami chettiar : air1932mad155 , and venugopalachariar v. padmanabha rao 29 m.l.j. 120 : 30 ind. cas. 188 : a.i.r. 1916 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 subramania aiyar v. swaminaha ayyar : air1935mad121 , the proposition is stated to be an.....
Judgment:

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The decision in Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : A.I.R. 1916 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 Naicker v. Palaniswami Chettiar : AIR1932Mad155 , and Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : A.I.R. 1916 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 Subramania Aiyar v. Swaminaha 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 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : A.I.R. 1916 Mad. 763, which held that the Courts have a discretion to pass a personal decree against a non-mortgagor. In the present case, the learned Judge has given reasons for passing the decree.

2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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