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
9 paragraphs · 171 wordsIn S.A. No. 1396 of 1921
In this case the mortgage money was deposited by plaintiff in Court u/s 83, Transfer of Property Act to the credit of the mort-gagee''s heirs.
Owing to quarrels among the heirs, the amount was not drawn, but the amount was allowed by, plaintiff to remain in deposit Until his suit for
redemption was decreed. He had thus done all he could to enable the mortgagee to draw the amount, as the money was not withdrawn by him
before the heirs could settle their disputes, as was the case in Thevaraya Reddy v. Venkatachalam Pandithar 31 M.L.J. 548. In this case, therefore
interest ceased to fun from the date of the deposit and the Subordinate Judge was right in allowing mesne profits to plaintiff. This being so his order
as to costs must also stand.
Second Appeal No. 1396 of 1921 is dismissed with costs of the plaintiff.
Second Apeal No. 1397 of 1921 is dismissed for the same reasons but without costs.