Judgement

Appeal (No. 4 of 1942), by special leave, from an order of the High Court (September 24, 1937), affirming an order of the Additional District Judge of Hoshangabad (April 6, 1934).

The question for decision in this appeal was whether the respondents, plaintiffs in a mortgage suit, were entitled to recover possession of the property in suit from the appellant, who had been one of the defendants to the suit but had been discharged therefrom by order of the trial judge on his interlocutory application claiming that he had a paramount title. The respondents subsequently obtained a final decree for foreclosure in the mortgage suit, and the main question was whether on their application to execute that decree an order for possession could be made in that application as against the appellant.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The trial judge directed that a warrant for possession should issue to eject the appellant, and on appeal that order was affirmed by the High Court (Pollock and Digby JJ.).

1943. Nov. 17, 18, 22. J. M. Parikh and Khambatta for the appellant. The order of the trial court of September 24, 1928, discharging the appellant from the sui