GOURIAMBAL ACHI Vs. PALVVRRAMANATHAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises a point of some novelty. The respondent filed a suit to enforce a mortgage. He impleaded as defendants Gowriambal Achi, the present appellant, her son and grandson. I extract the following passage from the judgment in that suit in April 1924: It appears to me that as a suit to enforce a mortgage the suit must fail. Gowriambal Achi has no title to the property. The properties wore left by will absolutely to Gowriambal's mother. It was recited that on the latter's death Gowriambal was to succeed to any of the properties which her mother had not alienated. Gowriambal's mother is still alive, and Gowriambal may never succeed to any of this property. I do not see how Gowriambal by her deed can create any charge on the property.

(2.) On this reasoning, Mr. Stodart, the District Judge, passed the following decree: I give the plaintiff a decree for the sum claimed Rs. 6,500, with simple interest at the contract rate, namely 12 per cent of Rs. 6,166, . . . . This is a simple money decree against defendant 1, Gowriambal alone. The suit as against defendants 2 and 3 is wholly dismissed.

(3.) We are not now called on to construe the will referred to in the passage above nor is it a part of the record before us. Nor are we at present concerned with the question whether the judgment is right or not; for the plaintiff submitted to it and it became final between the parties.