SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1941 Supreme(Oudh) 6

HIGH COURT OF OUDH
Agarwal, J.
Tajammul Husain Khan - Appellant
Versus
Amiruddin - Respondent
Decided On : 22-09-1941

JUDGMENT

Agarwal, J - This first appeal is from a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Bara Banki dated 30th April 1935, in a suit brought by the respondents Waziruddin, Anjumunnissa,. Amiruddin and Wasiuddin against Mohammadunnissa and others. The suit was decreed for the recovery of Rs. 50,000 and Mt. Mohammadunnissa appealed. She died during the pendency of the appeal and is now represented by Tajammul Husain Khan, Iqbal Husain Khan and Muzafiar Husain Khan her sons. The facts giving rise to this litigation are as follows:

2. Raja Sardar Husain Khan owned a five annas four pies share in village Palia Masudpur and eight annas nine pies ten krants, two jao one til share in village Bara Banki. He executed a usufructuary mortgage deed of his shares in both the villages in favour of Raja Bhagwan Baksh Singh and Pandit Sarju Prasad on 26th January 1903. Raja Sardar Husain Khan subsequently transferred his entire property to his daughter, Mt. Mohammadunnissa, the original appellant in this case by means of a gift deed dated 2nd May 1907. Mohammadunnissa executed a mortgage deed of her share in village Bara Banki in favour of Waziruddin and Anjumunissa, respondents 1 and 2, for Rs. 26,000 on 14th January 1918. This was a simple mortgage deed but there was a condition that in case of default of interest for a certain period the mortgagees would be entitled to take possession. On the next day, that is 15th January 1918, Mt. Mohammadunnissa transferred her share of village Masudpur Palia by means of two sale deeds of that date. One of these deeds was in favour of Mustafa Husain and the other in favour of Ummaid Ali. Both the vendees are brothers of Waziruddin mortgagee under the deed of 1918. Rs. 14,800 were left with TJmmaid Ali and the same sum with Mustafa Husain for payment to Baja Bhagwan Baksh and Sarju Prasad, mortgagees under the deed of 1903.

3. Mohammadunnissa brought a suit No. 68 of 1918 against the mortgagees Raja Bhagwan Baksh Singh and Sarju Prasad for redemption of the mortgage and made Waziruddin iind Anjumunnissa, mortgagees under the deed of 1918, defendants. Waziruddin and Anjumunnissa put in an application that they might be made plaintiffs. In spite of the objection of Mohammadunnissa, their prayer was granted and they were made plaintiffs. A prelin unary decree for redemption was passed and the sum found due to the mortgagees was Rs. 46,560. Sarju Prasad brought a suit for pre-emption in respect of the sale-deeds in favour of Mustafa Ali and Ummaid AH and obtained a decree. Credit was given by the mortgagees for the sum of Rs. 29,600 left with the vendees for payment to them under the sale deeds which were pre-empted by Sarju Prasad. The result was that the plaintiffs in the redemption suit No. 68 of 1918 had to pay Rs. 15,960-13-3 only. The preliminary decree provided that the amount was to be paid by 16th February 1920. This amount was deposited in Court on 30th January 1920, by Waziruddin, and Anjumunnissa, mortgagees, who had been made plaintiffs and it was ordered on 27th May 1920, that the final decree would be prepared in favour of Waziruddin and Mt. Anjumunnissa and they would be entitled to take possession of the property. This order was passed in the presence of Mt. Mohammadunnissa. The final decree was passed on 27th May 1920. The mortgagees Waziruddin and Anjumunnissa paid not only Rs. 16,960-13-3 but Rs. 925 more on account of arrears of rent which the mortgagees stated were due from the tenants. So, in all they paid Rs. 17,885-13-3. Mt. Mohammadunnissa then brought a suit No. 150 of 1920 against Wazirruddin, Anjumunnissa and three others for possession of the property in Bara Banki and ' offered to pay Rs. 17,885-13-3 paid by Waziruddin and Anjumunnissa. These defendants pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff paid nothing as interest under the bond of 1918 and under its terms they had become entitled to possession of the mortgaged share and they were entitled to retain possession. Two issues were fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top