VALI VENKATASWAMI CHETTIAR Vs. MINOR RAMALINGAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred is in the following terms:

(2.) ALL the decisions of this Court which have bearing on the question have been examined in the course of the arguments addressed to us and we shall refer to them presently in the order of date, but before doing so we think it necessary to emphasise what the Limitation Act has to say in this connection and to draw attention to the judgment of the Privy Council in Lasa Din v. Gulab Kunwar5.

(3.) IN Lasa Din v. Gulab Kunwar, (1932) 63 M.L.J. 187 : L.R. 59 I.A. 376 :, I.L.R. 7 Luck. 442 the Judicial Committee held that under Article 132 the money becomes payable only when the stipulated period has expired or a default having occurred the mortgagee has exercised his option to enforce the mort -gage. In that case the principal money was payable at the end of six years, but there was a clause which empowered the mortgagee to realise before the expiration of the stipulated period the principal and interest by sale of the mortgaged property 1 in default of payment of interest as agreed. The mortgagor defaulted in the payment of interest for the first year and it was contended for the defendants that on this default the principal money became due and therefore the suit had to be filed within twelve years from the date of default. Their Lordships rejected the argument and held that the default clause merely gave the mortgagee an option to enforce the mortgage at the earlier date. If he did not exercise the option the money secured became payable only at the end of the stipulated period.