Skip to content


G. Narayana Iyer Vs. S. Venkatarama Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.202
AppellantG. Narayana Iyer
RespondentS. Venkatarama Aiyar
Excerpt:
.....borrower whose mortgage has invoked section 69 of the transfer of property act, is to file a civil suit and in such suit the court has power to grant injunction and to impose condition for the grant thereof--section 17; [a.p. shah c.j., f.m. ibrahim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] proceedings under section 17 power of the tribunal to pass any interim order held, once the possession of the secured asset is taken, there would be no occasion for the tribunal to order redelivery of possession till final determination of the issue. in other words, it is only when the tribunal comes to the conclusion that any of the measures, referred to in section 13 (4) taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder, then only the..........to have awarded costs to the plaintiff. the defendant received notice of the suit on the 2nd; the suit was filed on the 5th august 1909. it is not clear that the plaintiff filed his suit too early. but, apart from this fact, the defendant made payment of the amount more than four weeks after the suit was instituted; and then it was only on being arrested that he made the payment.2. it is contended for the respondents that costs were at the discretion of the lower court and that i ought not to interfere in revision. but in this case the lower court has given a specific reason for disallowing costs, and that reason is unsatisfactory. ordinarily, costs should follow the event and, when the lower court does not act on this rule, it ought to give a sufficient reason. the reason given in this.....
Judgment:

Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. I am of opinion in this case that the lower Court ought to have awarded costs to the plaintiff. The defendant received notice of the suit on the 2nd; the suit was filed on the 5th August 1909. It is not clear that the plaintiff filed his suit too early. But, apart from this fact, the defendant made payment of the amount more than four weeks after the suit was instituted; and then it was only on being arrested that he made the payment.

2. It is contended for the respondents that costs were at the discretion of the lower Court and that I ought not to interfere in revision. But in this case the lower Court has given a specific reason for disallowing costs, and that reason is unsatisfactory. Ordinarily, costs should follow the event and, when the lower Court does not act on this rule, it ought to give a sufficient reason. The reason given in this case is quite insufficient.

3. I, therefore, modify the decree of the lower Court by awarding to the plaintiff his costs in the lower Court. The petitioner will also have his costs in this Court.


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