SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1921 Supreme(SC) 22

VISCOUNT HALDANE, AMEER ALI, SIR JOHN EDGE, LORD MOULTON, LORD SHAW, VISCOUNT FINLAY, LORD DUNEDIN
BISWANATH PRASHAD – Appellant
Versus
CHANDRA NARAYAN CHOWDHURI – Respondent


Judgement

Appeal (No. 83 of 1918) by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 17, 1915) reversing a decree of the District Judge of Darbhanga.

Mathura Prashad, since deceased and represented by the appellants, sued the respondents to enforce a mortgage bond for Rs. 8000 dated February 27, 1902. The bond, which was registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1877, in the Mozufferpur district only, purported to mortgage a 7-annas share in a village in the Darbhanga district and a one-kauri share in a village in the

Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 127 ( 1920- 1921) Biswanath Prashad V. C handra Narayan C howdhuri

34

Mozufferpur district. The mortgagor had purchased the one-kauri share shortly before executing the mortgage under circumstances which appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

The trial judge gave the plaintiff a decree, being of opinion that he was the owner of the one-kauri share, and that the registration was valid.

The High Court reversed the decree. The learned judges (Sharfuddin and Coxe JJ.) were of opinion that the one-kauri share was not validly transferred to the mortgagor, and that it was not intended that it should pass under the mortgage.


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top