PARAMASIVAM PILLAI Vs. SUBBAYA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We agree with the learned Judge who heard the civil revision petition in thinking that the respondent was equitably entitled to protection on the facts of this case, as the question between the parties whether there was good consideration for the promissory note could not be finally decided so long as the respondents-vendors title to the land which formed the consideration was in jeopardy in another suit.

(2.) In Milligan v. Cooke (1808) 33 E.R. 884 16 Ves. (Jun.) 1 the Court of Chancery in England ordered an indemnity to be given in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of a contract of sale of property the title to which might have become defective owing to a future contingency, and no illegality has been shown to us to a Court in India adopting a similar course when the equities arising between the parties demand it.

(3.) We decline to interfere and we dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal with costs.