SRIPAT RAI Vs. NARBADESHWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of these six appeals on the ground that the other creditors have not been impleaded and the appeals cannot proceed in their absence.

(2.) These six cases arise out of two applications under Section 4, United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act. Application No. 10 of 1936 was filed by Narbadeshwar Prasad Narain Singh alias Bachchu Babu son of Parmeshwari Prasad and the other application No. 15 of 1936 was filed by Chandreshwar Prasad Narain Singh, Dharmeshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Rameshwar Prasad Narain Singh, all sons of Ishwari Prasad Narain Singh. Ishwari Prasad Narain Singh and Parmeshwari Prasad were brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family. In the year 1922 Ishwari Prasad Narain Singh and Narbadeshwar Prasad executed three mortgages, Parmeshwari Prasad being dead. The first mortgage was dated 24th May 1922, and was for a sum of Rs. 9,999-15 0 and it was executed in favour of Inderdeo Rai. First Appeals NOS. 332 and 333 of 1943 arise out of the claim put on the basis of that mortgage. The other two mortgages were dated 30th May 1922, and both were executed by Ishwari Prasad Narain Singh and Narbadeshwar Prasad, one in favour of Sripat Narain Rai for a sum of Rs. 1,000 and the other in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of Mt. Sita Kuari for a sum of Rs. 8,999-15-0. First Appeals NOS. 137 and 138 of 1943 arise out of the claim put on the basis of the mortgage executed in favour of Sripat Narain Rai and First Appeals NOS. 334 and 335 of 1943 arise out of the claim on the basis of the mortgage executed in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of Mst. Sita Kuari. Though the landlords-applicants in their respective applications originally mentioned the three mortgages and the amounts due under them and showed the mortgagees as creditors, when the papers were sent to the Special Judge and the creditors put forward their claim under Section 9, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, the landlords-applicants raised objections and pleaded that the mortgages were void. In case No. 10 of 1936, which was the application filed by Narbadeshwar Prasad Narain Singh, two objections were taken, firstly, that on the dates when the three mortgage deeds were executed Narbadeshwar was a minor and, secondly, that the mortgage deeds had not been duly registered and were therefore void. It may be mentioned that village Kathaunda in the district of Ballia was given in security by the mortgagors but the document was registered in Chhapra in the Province of Bihar and a small plot of land in village Salaur in Chhapra was included in the mortgage deed to give jurisdiction to the Sub-Registrar to register the document. After having mortgaged village Kathaunda, the relevant portion of the mortgage deed relating to the plot of land in village Salaur is as follows:

(3.) The learned Special Judge held in favour of the objectors that the three mortgage deeds had not been duly registered and were void and was further of the opinion that on the dates when the three mortgage deeds were executed Narbadeshwar was a minor. On these findings the learned Special Judge refused to pass any decree under Section 14 in favour of the mortgagees. There were various other creditors in whose favour decrees under Section 14 were passed by the Special Judge. The mortgagees filed these six appeals and it was urged on their behalf by learned counsel that, even if the mortgage deeds were not duly registered and Narbadeshwar was a minor, their claim should have been allowed and decrees in favour of the mortgagees should have been passed under Section 14.