Tharira Ram vs Mahla Ram - 1933 Supreme(Lah) 237

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1933 Supreme(Lah) 237

BHIDE
Tharira Ram – Appellant
Versus
Mahla Ram – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Bhide, J. - The sole point for decision. in this second appeal is whether a personal decree can be passed under Order 34 Rule 6, Civil P.C., when the mortgaged property has either not been sold or the sale has been set aside owing to a third party having been declared to be the owner of the property. The learned District Judge has held, in disagreement with the view of the trial Court, that in the present case as the mortgaged property had not been sold owing to a third party having been declared to be the owner thereof no personal decree could be passed under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C. In arriving at this decision he has relied on a. ruling of the Allahabad High Court reported as Babu Lal v. Raghunandan . The view taken by the Allahabad High Court, however appears to be in conflict with the view taken on the same point by the High Courts of Madras, Calcutta, Bombay and Patna. It has been held by these High Courts that if the, mortgaged property has ceased to be available for the benefit of the mortgagee, for instance, by loss or fire or by the property having been declared to belong to third persons there is no bar to a personal decree being passed under Order 34, Rule 6

Click Here to Read the rest of this document