Sami Achari Vs. Somasundram Achari

Sami Achari vs Somasundram Achari

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 15, 1882

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/786504

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/786504
Court: Chennai
Judge: Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Muttusami Ayyar, J.
Decided On: Nov 15, 1882
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Res judicata - Limitation--Declaratory mortgage-decree for redemption not executed for fifteen, years no bar to subsequent suit to redeem. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sami Achari

Respondent

Somasundram Achari

Legal References

Reported In: (1883)ILR6Mad119

Excerpt

res judicata - limitation--declaratory mortgage-decree for redemption not executed for fifteen, years no bar to subsequent suit to redeem. - charles a. turner, kt., c.j. and muttusami ayyar, j.1. the decree passed in 1866 must, in the events which have happened, be regarded as a declaratory decree in so far as it related to redemption. it declared the plaintiff entitled to redeem and to recover possession on making a certain payment. it did not declare the mortgagor would be foreclosed if he did not exercise his right of redemption. the mortgagor's right to redeem is not lost because he omitted to make the payment which was declared to be the condition of his recovering possession in the former proceedings.2. the appeal is dismissed, but we refuse the respondent his costs, and overrule his objection with costs.

Full Judgment

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. The decree passed in 1866 must, in the events which have happened, be regarded as a declaratory decree in so far as it related to redemption. It declared the plaintiff entitled to redeem and to recover possession on making a certain payment. It did not declare the mortgagor would be foreclosed if he did not exercise his right of redemption. The mortgagor's right to redeem is not lost because he omitted to make the payment which was declared to be the condition of his recovering possession in the former proceedings.

2. The appeal is dismissed, but we refuse the respondent his costs, and overrule his objection with costs.

Same Parties Sami Achari vs Somasundram Achari Same Subject Civil Same Judge Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Muttusami Ayyar, J.

Civil