KARAMAT HUSAIN, TUDBALL
Ram Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Jagrup – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff's, father on the 19th of July 1899, executed a mortgage with possession in favour of Jagrup. One of the terms of the mortgage was that the mortgagor would not be entitled to redeem for 58 years. The mortgagor's son brought an action on the 9th of August 1910 for redemption of the mortgage. In paragraph 5 of his plaint, he stated as follows: "The defendant has cunningly, fraudulently and. dishonestly got the period of mortgage enter-ed as 58 years in the deed of mortgage sought to be redeemed, which is most prejudicial and improper and is legally and equitably null and void". The fraud which the plaintiff attempted to prove was that a long term was entered in the mortgage-deed without the knowledge and consent of the mortgagor. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that there was non-joinder of parties and that the fraud alleged by the plaintiff was not proved. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal. In second appeal, it is urged that such a long period as was agreed upon in this case is unconscionable and hard and should, therefore, be set aside and in support of this contention reliance is placed upon Morgan v.
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.