126-NLR-NLR-V-23-ARUNASALAM-v.-RAMANATHER.pdf
■1981.
( )ARUNASALAM v. RAMANATHER,
230—C. B. Kayta, 6,141.
Hypothecation 0/ money deposited.
Bajaratnam (with him Nadarajah), toe plaintiff, appellant.
J. Joseph, toe defendant, respondent.
October 10,1921. Ds Sampayo J.—
An objection is taken an behalf of the respondent that security in' appealhas not' been given as provided by section 757 of the Civil Procedure Code.The appellant bound himself in the ordinary way in the sum of Rs. 27-60, butat the aid of the bond, which is inaprinted form, there is this farther provisionincluded in manuscript: “ and for better securing the payment of the saidsum of Re. 27-50 I do hereby deposit in cash Rs. 27-50'as per Kachoherireceipt dated July 12, 1921, bearing No. 422.”
I am of opinion that this provision contains a sufficient hypothecation ofthe sum of Rs. 27 – 50 within the meaning of section 757. lids provision issimilar to that in the bond given in Arunaealam Ohetty «. SomaeunderamChewy [6 C. W. B. 274 and 215), in which it was held that the bond containeda hypothecation of the amount in deposit.
I therefore overrule the objection, aid will hear the appeal.