BIJAYESH MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) BY this suit raised on January 28, 1958, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (shortened into LIC hereafter, as far as possible), prays for a decree under Order 34, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) in form No. 5-A in appendix D in the first schedule thereto, on the foot of two mortgages, the details whereof are set out below: 1. Mortgage-deed bearing date November 29, 1946 exhibit A: principal sum Rs. 29,000. 00

2. Deed of further charge bearing date January 19, 1949 , exhibit B: principal sum Rs. 5,000. 00

3. Annual interest at 7% a compound up to January 27, 1958 , minus credit of sums received towards interest Rs. 20,247. 71

Total Rs. 50,247. 71

( 2 ) THE mortgagor is the sole defendant to this suit, Smt. Nandorani Dassi qua trustee to the estate of late Modhoo Sooden Sain, her father-in-law. The property mortgaged is the divided 4/21st share in the then 116 Cotton Street, now numbered as "114/1b", and admeasuring 1 cottah 14 chittacks and 3 square feet. The mortgagee is India Provident Company, Ltd. , the statutory successor of which is LIC, the present plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE pleas, Nandorani, the defendant, resists the suit with, are-One, she had not received the full consideration money for either of the two mortgages. Two, a pardanashin lady, with little education, she had had no independent advice ever. Three, she never fully understood the Import or effect of the two mortgages.

( 4 ) THE issues raised at the trial are:1. Did the India Provident Co. , Ltd. , the predecessor in interest of the present plaintiff. Life Insurance Corporation of India, advance to the defendant a sum aggregating Rs. 30,000? 2. Had the defendant independent advice at the relevant time? 3. Was the disposition evinced by the two mortgages -- one dated November 29, 1946, and another dated January 19, 1949 -- substantially understood by her, and her mental act, as the execution thereof was her physical act, if that? 4. What reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to?

( 5 ) TO the first issue first. Evidence is overwhelming that Nandorani did receive Rs. 30,000 in full. [after discussing the evidence his Lordship continued. ]

( 6 ) SO, nothing shakes the authentic evidence led on behalf of LIC to prove payment of Rs. 30,000 in full by the mortgagee company to Nandorani. It is, I hold, evidence of standing. And I find the first issue against Nandorani, the sole defendant.

( 7 ) THE second and the third issues are taken together, as the facts they traverse run into one another. At the time of the first mortgage, Nandorani's solicitor, Mr. H. N. Sen, was there to advise her and to protect her interest. Her husband Moti Lall, a pleader too, was there as well. What better advice and legal advice at that, could she have at that point of time? It was so independent advice too. The solicitor who was advising so, in regard to a simple mortgage transaction, was not in any way dependent on the mortgagee company, taking the mortgage, and represented by a separate and independent solicitor of its own, namely, Mr. N. K. Roy. More, such a one. Mr. H. N. Sen, in possession of full facts, was giving real advice, and not sham advice. And how simple were the facts he was in possession of! The 4/21st undivided share in the then 116 Cotton Street was to be partitioned in view of the allotment made to Nandorani by the Commissioner of partition in a partition suit of this Court: Suit No. 1152 of 1909. Unless it was partitioned so, it could not be made separate and independent and, therefore, viable, just what the recitals in the first mortgage-deed bear:"and whereas by the. . . . . . Return the Commissioner of Partition directed the mortgagor to do certain things mentioned in the. . . . . . . . . Return in order to make her lot separate and independent. . . . . . . . . "that would certainly require money to be expended, the more so, because, to quote a little more from the recitals:--". . . . . . . . . pending t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document