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

1922 Supreme(SC) 47

Bholanath Sen – Appellant
Versus
Balaram Das and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Douglas Grant, W. W. Box and Co.

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


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