Madras High Court
Kamakshi Nayakan vs Ramasami Nayakan And Anr. on 5 November, 1896
Equivalent citations: (1897)7MLJ131
JUDGMENT
1. So far as the claim for a declaration that the hypothecation bond is not binding, the action is barred.
2. As regards the rest of the claim, the mortgage and sale relied upon executed by the plaintiff's mother and guardian are void as against him except in so far as they can be shown to be for his, benefit or executed under circumstances otherwise rendering them binding upon him. Therefore in this suit for possession of the property comprised in such deeds, it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to set them aside as a condition precedent to a decree for possession We think, therefore, that neither Article 44 nor Article 91 applies.
3. We must, therefore, modify the decree of the District Judge as to the possession of the land referred to in the mortgage and sale, and direct the appeal to be heard on the merits and disposed of according to, law. The respondents must pay and receive the proportionate costs of this appeal.