NATESA PILLAY Vs. MUNUSAWMY NAICKEN

JUDGEMENT

(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. 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.