DINESH CHAND GUPTA Vs. BITOLA DEVI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1976 passed by Sri S. C. Shukla, formerly II Civil Judge, Kanpur dismissing the suit with costs.

(2.) On 27-7-1976 plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,457.50 P. along with pen-dente lite and future interest at the rate of Re. 1/- per cent per mensem and in case of failure to pay, the sale of house number 96, Panki Katra, Kanpur on the basis of a simple mortgage dated 3-2-1971 executed by defendants' numbers 1 and 2 in his favour on 3-2-1971. It was also prayed that in case the amount remained unpaid by the sale of house number 96, Panki Katra, Kanpur, the same may be recovered from the sale of house number 110/165, Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur. The principal sum was Rupees 12,500/-. The interest agreed was Re. 1/-per cent per mensem. The amount was agreed to be paid within two years. Defendant 3 was impleaded with the allegation that he was a transferee of house number 110/165 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur, and the defendants 1 and 2 had transferred the house with a view to defeat and delay the payment of the money due on the mortgage.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2 with the allegations that Ganeshi Lal had no right to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff, that no loan was ever advanced by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff is a permanent resident of England, that Ganeshi Lal lives at Kanpur and conducts money-lending business fictitiously in the name of the plaintiff, that Ganeshi Lal advanced only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to defendant 1 and got a mortgage deed for Rs. 12,500/executed fictitiously that defendant 1 is alone the owner of the house, that defendant 2 has no concern with the same, that defendant 2 is the owner of house No. 110/165 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur and he sold the same to defendant 3, that no charge can be created on house no. 110/ 165 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur, that the suit is barred by Sec. 10, U. P. Regulations of Money-lending Act, 1976, and that defendants 2 and 3 have been wrongly impleaded.