https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279281 A suit on a promissory note coupled with a prayer to enforce a charge on pledged movable property was treated as a suit for enforcement of security, not as a money suit simpliciter. Clauses (w) and (x) of Section 3 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act were read as distinguishing unsecured money claims from suits where relief against property is also sought. Because a pledgee has concurrent rights to sue on the debt or sell the pledged property, the action fell within Clause (x) rather than Clause (w). The Court therefore retained jurisdiction to try the suit despite the defendant's alleged agriculturist status. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 1928 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:48:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279281 A suit on a promissory note coupled with a prayer to enforce a charge on pledged movable property was treated as a suit for enforcement of security, not as a money suit simpliciter. Clauses (w) and (x) of Section 3 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act were read as distinguishing unsecured money claims from suits where relief against property is also sought. Because a pledgee has concurrent rights to sue on the debt or sell the pledged property, the action fell within Clause (x) rather than Clause (w). The Court therefore retained jurisdiction to try the suit despite the defendant's alleged agriculturist status. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Oct 1928 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279281