AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 188 wordsO''Kinealy and Hill, JJ.—This is a suit for money due on a simple mortgage bond dated the 12th Jaista 1288; and the only point in the appeal is in regard to the defendant No. 7, who became the mortgagee of the equity of redemption after the plaintiffs'' mortgage. This defendant was not originally on the record, but was, in the course of the suit, added by the first Court u/s 32 of the Code.
It has been held in the case of Oriental Bank Corporation v. Charriol ILR 12 Cal. 642 that where a Court, acting on information brought to its notice, adds a party who, it thinks, is necessary for the disposal of the suit, no question of limitation arises.
The defendant No. 7 in this case was, under the Transfer of Property Act, a party necessary for the final disposal of the suit. We, therefore, think that no question of limitation arises; and the mortgage in suit must be enforced against the defendant No. 7, as well as the other defendants, except the defendant No. 6.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.