A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, R. S. BACHAWAT
Ram Prasad Dagaduram – Appellant
Versus
Vijaykumar Motilal Hirakhanwala – Respondent
Judgment
SARKAR, CJI. : This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent Vijay Kumar against the appellant on February 9, 1954 to enforce a mortgage. The plaint stated that the appellant executed the mortgage on December 13, 1934 in favour of Tarabai the proprietor of the firm of Narayandas Chunilal, and that the amount secured on it became due on December 13, 1943.Vijay Kumar claimed that he was adopted by Tarabai on July 16, 1948 as a son to her deceased husband Motilal Hirakhanwala and became entitled to enforce the mortgage as her sole heir on her death on April 23, 1952. After setting out the particulars of the mortgage, Vijay Kumar asked for decree for foreclosure. In his written statement appellant admitted the mortgage but denied that Vijay Kumar had been adopted by Tarabai and stated that she had died leaving as her heirs three daughters, Rajkumar, Premkumari and Mahabalkumari the mother of Vijay Kumar. Besides denying Vijay Kumar s right to enforce mortgage, the appellant took various other defences to the action to which it is unnecessary for the purpose of this appeal to refer.
2. The learned District Judge who heard the suit, held that the adoption of Vijay Kumar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.