[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 [LQ/MadHC/1911/4] . 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.
Natesa Pillay v. Munusawmy Naicken
Natesa Pillay v. Munusawmy Naicken
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
No. | 01-11-1911
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RALPH BENSON
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDARA AIYAR
Eq Citations
- 13 IND. CAS. 313
- LQ/MadHC/1911/274
Head Note
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Ss. 58, 59 and 60 — Misdescription — Plaintiff entitled to show that right purchased by Veera Pillay under Exhibit C was the mortgage now sued on, and that Exhibit C was a misdescription — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 99
