REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MT.CHUNAI Appellant

V/S

RAM PRASAD Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHRI BEHARIJI MAHARAJ V. MANMOHAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
PANNA LAL V. RAMESHWAR SAHAI [REFERRED TO]
MULLA VITTIL SEETI KUTTI V. KUNHI PATHUMMA [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV RAGHUNATH V. GAFOOR KHAN [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN DAS V. ABDUL RAHIM [REFERRED TO]
WAZIR CHAND V. NATHU RAM [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAM V. NAJIBULLAH [REFERRED TO]
VENKU V. BAMACHANDRAYYA [REFERRED TO]
S.N.THIRUVIKRAMA AYYAR V. VYAPURI NAICKEN [REFERRED TO]
MARIYUMMA V. ANDU [REFERRED TO]
FAZAL DIN V. MOHAMMAD HAFIZ [REFERRED TO]
VISHVANATH V. TUKARAM [REFERRED TO]
GOMTI MISRA V. DEOTADIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JAMES RICHARD R. SKINNER V. NAUNIHAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MEHNGA V. ZAMAN ALI SHAH [REFERRED TO]
SULEMAN BAHADUR V. FIDA HUSAIN [REFERRED TO]
BIJAIPRATAB V. RAGHURAJ SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MUNAWAR ALI VS. JAGMILAN RAM [REFERRED TO]
LALA MAN MOHAN DAS VS. JANKI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
RAJA BRAJA SUNDER DEB VS. BAMDEB DAS ALIAS PATTANAIK [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL AZIZ VS. MUNNI LAL [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA NATH DEY VS. SURESH CHANDRA DEY [REFERRED TO]
DIRGPAL SINGH VS. KALLU [REFERRED TO]
LAKHMI DAS VS. MTBADLA [REFERRED TO]
NAUNIHAL SINGH VS. ALICE GEORGINA SKINNER [REFERRED TO]
BAIKUNTHANATH ROY VS. AHMEDULLA [REFERRED TO]
GHASI RAM VS. MUSAMMAT KISHNA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the benefit of reading the exhaustive judgment of my brother Mushtaq Ahmad.

(2.) The facts are fully set out in the judgment of my learned brother, and it is, therefore, not necessary for me to deal with them in detail. The plaintiffs' suit was for redemption of a possessory mortgage dated 1-9-1881, executed, by Kanhai, Mahabir and Mahadeo in favour of Hathi Prasad. The mortgagors are all dead and their heirs and legal representatives, Bishwanath Prasad, Ajodhya Prasad and Lachmi Prasad, sold the property on 19-7-1941, to Ram Prasad and others, plaintiffs The suit was filed, by the legal representatives of the mortgagors as well as by the transferees for redemption of the mortgage. The mortgage deed provided that the amount borrowed would be paid to the mortgagee within a period of six months and, if the amount was not so paid, the mortgage deed would be deemed to be a sale deed and the mortgagee would become the owner of the property. The amount was not paid to the mortgagee and the mortgagee remained in possession but he never filed any suit for foreclosure.

(3.) The mortgagee, Hathi Prasad, died, and his widow, Sm. Sumrekha, purported to transfer the property to her son-in-law Baleshwar Prasad under a mortgage deed dated 19-9-1917. In the mortgage deed she described herself as--the full owner of the property and no reference was made to the mortgage deed of 1-9-1881. On-31-1-1924, Bhairon Prasad, the grandson of Kanhai, one of the mortgagors, filed an application for redemption under Section 83, T. P. Act, but the application failed and was dismissed on 31-5-1924. On 24-7-1925, Sm. Sumrekha sold the property to Baleshwar Prasad. The recital in the sale deed was that she had purchased the property under the document dated 1-9-1881. The suit for redemption was filed on 4-8-1941.

Click here to view full judgment.

CHUNAI Vs. RAM PRASAD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address