Pichandi v. Kandasami And Anr.

1. The Subordinate Judge should not have refused to receive the bond as evidence of the debt, but he also holds that the claim for the debt is barred by limitation. The debt was payable on the 4th August 1879 and the suit was not brought till April 1883.

2. The plaintiff, however, maintains that he was in possession of the land mortgaged by the bond and received profits as mortgagee; but the defendants rejoin that the deed being inoperative to create a mortgage the plaintiff cannot claim to have received profits of mortgaged property nor to have received them as mortgagee. We are constrained to allow the force of the argument and must hold the suit was rightly dismissed.

3. The application is dismissed with costs.