NANALAL BHOGILAL Vs. AMBALAL SOMNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal in execution which raises an interesting question of jurisdiction.

(2.) THE decree sought to be executed was passed on 5-10-1945. It was a decree by consent. The suit in which the decree was passed was suit No. 496 of 1942 filed by one Raval Goculeshwar Maganlal in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedabad. The suit was to enforce a mortgage executed in his favour on 6-5-1932, by two defts. , who are father and son, and who are appellants in the present appeal. In the suit was also another party as deft. 3, who is the respondent to the present appeal. Defts. 1 and 2 effected three mortgages, subsequent to the first mortgage in favour of deft. 3 and those three mortgages are dated 16-12-1932, 27-11-1933 and 17- 5-1938. The mortgage in favour of the plff. was one in order to secure a sum of Rs. 1,200 and the mortgages in favour of deft. 3 were respectively to secure Rs. 1,300, Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 4,000. The mortgage in favour of the plff. was one with possession.

(3.) IN the suit in question the plff. and the defts came to an agreement or compromise and the agreement was embodied in a decree. There are several parts of the decree which are set out in the appellate judgment. Nothing turns upon the terms of the decree, so that it is not necessary to refer to those terms in any detail in this place.