M.W.DEO
HARIRAM LEHRUMAL SINDHI – Appellant
Versus
ANANDRAO NARAYANRAO MUKATI – Respondent
( 1 ) ANANDRAO and Gajanandrao were brothers. They owned the suit property. These two brothers mortgaged the suit house by registered mortgage-deed dated 28-4-1947 in favour of Radhakishan for a sum of Rs. 1,500/ -. It was a possessory mortgage. A supplementary mortgage of Rs. 800/- was also made in favour of Radhakishan. Later on there was a partition between the mortgagee Anandrao and Gajanandrao with the result that the suit, house fell to the share of Anandrao. In the meanwhile the mortgagee Radhakishan, transferred this fights in favour of Ramgopal.
( 2 ) THE mortgagee, Radhakishan, had let out two rooms on the ground floor of the mortgaged house to the present appellant Hariram as a monthly tenant on a rent of Rs. 35/- per month. We are not concerned with the possession of the other portion of the house.
( 3 ) ANANDRAO filed the original suit for redemption as he had deposited the entire money and costs both payable under the mortgage on 3-8-1972. Anandrao also claimed possession by evicting Hariram (present appellant) from the suit premises. In this suit Ramgopal was arrayed as defendant No. 1, Laxmibai (widow of Radhakishan) as defendent No. 2, Hariram, the ten
Lalji Purshottam v. Thacker Madhavji Meghaji
M/s. Sachalmal Parasram v. Mst. Ratanbai
Jahuri Sah v. D. P. Jhunjhunwala
Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. v. K. C. Bhaskaran Nair
Dhanbai v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra
Samrathmal v. Union of India, Ministry of Railway
Referred to : Pomal Kanji Govindji v. Vrajlal Karasandas Purohit
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.