BANSILAL LALCHAND Vs. SHIVLAL LUMBARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by three plaintiffs to obtain a declaration that a sale-deed dated 26-5-1936, executed by defendant 3, who is the lather of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the husband of plaintiff 3, was not binding upon their interest in the suit property which is a house situated at Ahmednagar. The circumstances giving rise to the suit are shortly these.

(2.) The house in suit originally belonged to a family of three brothers, of whom defendant 3 was one. There was a partition in the year 1932 between the three brothers and at this partition the family house fell to the share of defendant 3. The evidence shows that at the partition defendant 3 obtained property worth about Rs. 40,000. It appears that defendant 3 was then a minor and the property which fell to his share was managed by trustees who made over possession to defendant 3 in or about the year 1034. The fact of handing over possession is evidenced by a receipt which is produced in the case. It also appears from the evidence that during the time the trustees were in management a business called a "cloth business" was being carried on on behalf of defendant 3.

(3.) On 2-12-1935, that is to say, after defendant 3 attained the age of majority, he executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 a mortgage for the consideration of Rs. 5,000 and by this mortgage he gave as security the house in suit. On 21-1-1936, he effected a second mortgage in relation to the same property in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for the consideration of Rs. 2,000. On 3-3-1936, he effected a third mortgage in relation to the same house in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for the consideration of Rs. 3,000. It is obvious that the total consideration of these three documents was a sum of Rs. 10,000.