https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169917 A second suit to enforce an equitable mortgage was held not barred by Order II Rule 2 because the earlier money suit arose from a distinct cause of action, and Order XXXIV Rules 14 and 15 preserved the mortgage remedy. The respondent could attack adverse findings supporting its decree without filing cross-objections, and Order XLI Rule 33 was unnecessary where the decree sought could follow from reversal of those findings. The appellant also failed to prove discharge of liability: the alleged tripartite arrangement and vehicle transfer did not establish novation, substituted obligation, or the bank's assent. The bank's decree was upheld. en-us Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169917 A second suit to enforce an equitable mortgage was held not barred by Order II Rule 2 because the earlier money suit arose from a distinct cause of action, and Order XXXIV Rules 14 and 15 preserved the mortgage remedy. The respondent could attack adverse findings supporting its decree without filing cross-objections, and Order XLI Rule 33 was unnecessary where the decree sought could follow from reversal of those findings. The appellant also failed to prove discharge of liability: the alleged tripartite arrangement and vehicle transfer did not establish novation, substituted obligation, or the bank's assent. The bank's decree was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169917