AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Subordinate Judge finds that there was not gross negligence in the circumstances of this case on the part of the nth defendant, the prior
mortgagee. The Subordinate Judge has accepted the nth defendant''s explanation for not having been possessed himself of the title deeds. We are
also disposed to agree with the decision in Rangasami Naicken v. Annamalai Mudali ILR (1907) M. 9 where it is pointed out that the same
importance does not attach to the possession of the title deeds in the mofussil as in the city of Madras, and that facility in inspecting the registry
provided by the registration law should be taken into account in determining whether there was gross regligence in the prior encumbrancer. We
dismiss the second appeal with costs.