LODHA
Mira Bai – Appellant
Versus
Jai Singh – Respondent
2. The plaintiffs case is that their ancester Tejpal made a usufructuary mortgage of the house in question for Rs. 400 in favour of Nandlal and Naharsingh ancestors of the defendants by a registered mortgage deed dated 16.2.1960 and that they were entitled to redeem the same on payment of the principal sum of Rs. 400. They also claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10 per month from the date of suit till the delivery of possession of the house to them. The defendants denied the alleged mortgage. The learned Munsiff, Kekri held that the alleged mortgage was not proved, and consequently dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs the judgment and decree by the trial court were upheld by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer. Consequently, the plaintiffs have come in second appeal to this Court
3. Both the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that there survives only one point for decision in this case and that in whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving the mortgage set up by them ?
4. The original mortgage deed is
(6) Keshibai Martand vs. Vinayak Ganesh (AIR 1956 Bom 65)
(3) Baboolal vs. Nathmal (1956 RLW 241—AIR 1956 Raj. 126)
(5) Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1960 RLW 44—AIR 1960 Raj. 92)
(7) Karupunna Gounder vs. Kolandaswami Gounder (AIR 1954 Mad. 486)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.