Q. What are the equivalent citations for Taluk Board, Chidambaram vs Varadesesha Iyengar ?

The equivalence citation areAIR 1938 MAD 226 ; LQ/MadHC/1937/6 ;

Taluk Board, Chidambaram Vs. Varadesesha Iyengar On 05 January, 1937

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Taluk Board, Chidambaram vs Varadesesha Iyengar?

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MADHVAN NAIR

Open iDraf

Taluk Board, Chidambaram v. Varadesesha Iyengar

Taluk Board, Chidambaram
v.
Varadesesha Iyengar

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

No | 05-01-1937

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 it was held that such a decree can be passed. In Rajagopalaswami Naicken v. Palanisaml Chettiar , 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 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.

Taluk Board, Chidambaram v. Varadesesha Iyengar

Taluk Board, Chidambaram
v.
Varadesesha Iyengar

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties -------

For Petitioner

For Respondent

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADHVAN NAIR

Eq Citation

AIR 1938 MAD 226

LQ/MadHC/1937/6

HeadNote