Dona Ceciliana and Others v. Kamala Piyaseeli and Another – sllr 1990 volume 1 page 226

In the case between Dona Ceciliana and Others (appellants) and Kamala Piyaseeli and Another (respondents), the court addressed the validity of an appeal where the appellants failed to properly furnish security for the respondents’ costs by depositing and hypothecating the required sum, as mandated under the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that the absence of a hypothecation bond with the monetary deposit did not constitute compliance with statutory requirements, rendering the notice of appeal invalid. The court reaffirmed the principle that procedural requirements under sections 754, 755, 757, and 759 for furnishing security are mandatory and integral to invoking appellate jurisdiction. This decision relied on the clear language of the Civil Procedure Code and established case law, empha