RANGA AIYANGAR Vs. NARAYAN CHARIAR ALIAS CHAKRAVARTHI VIJIYARAGHAVACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. The first plaintiffs father, Srinivasa Aiyangar, mortgaged the plaint properties with possession to the defendant s ancestor, Srinivasachariar in 1864. The Othi deed contained also a covenant by the mortgagor to pay the mortgage money personally. The defendant s ancestor brought a suit against Srinivasa Aiyangar s sons in 1867 for recovery of the Othi amount of Rs. 136 on the charge of the mortgaged property (the plaint itself was not filed in the records but the suit might be taken as having, contained the usual prayers for sale on default and for recovery of the balance, if any, from the defendants therein to the extent of their (sic) properties). In April 1872, the decree, Exhibit A, was passed of which the operative portion is as follows:

(2.) The sole question in this case is whether the present suit is barred as res judicata by the decree in the former suit. Both the lower Courts decided the question in the affirmative and hence this second appeal.

(3.) It seems to me clear, that, if in the former suit there was a decree in favour of the present plaintiffs (though they were the defendants in the former suit) and if it was an executable decree and if that decree granted them substantially the same reliefs as they now claim in this suit, they are barred by res judicata from maintaining this suit, and notwithstanding the strenuous and able arguments of Mr. T.M. Krishnasawmi Aiyar who appeared for the appellants before us, I have come to the conclusion that the finding of the lower courts was correct on the question of res judicata.