DURAISAMI Vs. VENKATASESHAIYAR
LAWS(PVC)-1901-9-13
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on September 23,1901

DURAISAMI Appellant
VERSUS
VENKATASESHAIYAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Assuming that the original bond has not been discharged, we think it is clear that the suit would not be barred by limitation, because in the subsequent document there is an acknowledgment that a debt was still due beyond the Rs. 1,500 for which the security was then taken.
(2.) The question when the original bend was discharged was clearly raised by the first issue and there was a decision on that issue. It was therefore not competent to the District Judge, under Section 566 of the Civil P. C., to frame a fresh issue and allow fresh evidence to be taken. We must ask the District Judge to return findings on the first and second issues, dealing with the" matter as if no fresh issue had been framed and no additional evidence taken. The findings should be submitted within one month from this date and seven days will be allowed for filing objections after the findings have been posted up in this Court. [The District Judge returned the finding that the amount of the interest due on the first mortgage remained undischarged and that there was a promise by the defendant to pay that amount].
(3.) On receipt of this finding the Court delivered the following;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.