TALUK BOARD, CHIDAMBARAM Vs. VARADESESHA IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision in Venugopalachariar V/s. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. Mad 763 supports the appellant's case that personal decree for costs cannot be passed against a person who is a non-mortgagor in a suit by the mortgagee, but in Ramakrishna Ayyar V/s. Raghunatha Ayyar it was held that such a decree can be passed. In Rajagopalaswami Naicken V/s. Palanisaml Chettiar , Venugopalachariar V/s. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. Mad 763 was considered and explained by the learned Judges. Though the circumstances were somewhat different, the learned Judges held that a decree for costs personally against the non-mortgagor can be passed on a mortgage action. In Subramanin Ayyar V/s. Swaminatha Ayyar the proposition is stated to be an undoubted one, though there is no discussion of the point. I am inclined to agree with the decision subsequent to Venugopalachariar V/s. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. Mad 763 which held that the Courts have a discretion to pass a personal decree against a non- mortgagor.

(2.) IN the present case, the learned Judge has given reasons for passing the decree. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.