Back
1922 Supreme(SC) 47
Privy Council
Duff, Ameer Ali, Sir John Edge, Carson, Justice Phillimore, JJ.
Bholanath Sen -Appellant
Versus
Balaram Das and others -Resopndent
Bengal A. No. 126 of 1917
Decided On : 14-07-1922
Douglas Grant, W. W. Box and Co.
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Decree - Interpretation - Where there is ambiguity in the language of the judgment, the final drawn-up decree shall prevail in determining the extent of the liability or the property affected.
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a decree in a mortgage suit. The appellant contended that the decree should have been a personal decree as he possessed no title to the mortgaged property. Furthermore, it was argued that the decree should have been limited to 4 annas of the property instead of 16 annas.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the appellant had professed to have an interest in the property, that interest was bound by the mortgage. Regarding the extent of the property, the court observed that while the judgment's language might have been ambiguous, the final decree clearly affected only 4 annas.
Issues: Whether the decree should be personal or a mortgage decree given the appellant's claim of lack of title, and whether the decree applied to 4 annas or 16 annas of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: A party who claims an interest in mortgaged property cannot later argue for a personal decree on the basis of lack of title to avoid the mortgage's enforcement against that interest. Additionally, the specific terms of the final drawn-up decree override ambiguous phrasing in the delivering judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
mortgages
- mortgage suits
-
mortgages
Lord Phillimore :-
Their Lordships, having heard a full statement of the facts of the case, and everything that could be urged by learned counsel for the appellant are satisfied that the decree appealed from must stand.
There are, in fact, on final examination but two points to be taken on behalf of the appellant. The first is that the decree ought to have been a personal decree only and not a decree as in a mortgage suit involving the mortgaged properties, the suggestion being that as the appellant had no title to any part of the mortgaged property, there ought not to be an order against the mortgaged properties. The answer is that it does not lie in his mouth to say so. He has professed to have an interest in this property, and whatever interest he may have had has been bound by the mortgage, and, as far as he is concerned, must be enforced against him.
The second point taken is that the decree ought only to have been made in respect of 4 annas of the property, and it has, in fact, been made against 16 annas. The answer to that is that those who say this have misconstrued the decree.
There is no doubt something in the language of the learned Judge of the High Court who delivered the Judgment which would look as if he so thought, and possibly, as against the appellant if the Judge had so thought it might have been said, that a decree had been passed against him in respect of any interest he might have in the 16 annas ; but, however that may be, when the decree came to be carefully drawn up it is quite clear that it only affects the four annas.
These two points, therefore, fail, and their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
