UDASI NIRWANI Vs. SURAJPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this case is a registered society which carries on the business of money-lending. It appeals from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated February 8, 1939, which varied the decree of the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) THE respondents are members of a joint undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara school. THE decree of which complaint is made, was pronounced in an action brought by the appellant upon a simple mortgage dated September 22, 1920. THE family tree of the Hindu family and the members sued appear from the table following: Hanuman Singh(died many years ago). . _____________________________________|_________________________ _____. | || | ||Mahabal Singh = Lakhpati Kunwar Brijmangal Singh Sheo Mangal Singh(died 1919) (defendant No. 7, (died 1905). (defendant No. 1). respondent No. 5). || || _______________|______________________________|____| || | || Surajpal Singh Baram Din SinghDharampal Singh (defendant No. 2) (defendant No. 3, (died before 1933). alias Chhedi Singh respondent No. 2). (respondent No. 1). || . ____________________|__________________________________________ _________. | | || | | ||Sheo Pratab Singh Lal Pratab Sing Har Pratab SinghChutaku Singh born 18-8-18 defendant No. 4, (defendant No, 5,(defendant No. 6,(according to respondent No. 3, born after 1920. respondent No. 4,defendant No. 2, (born after 1920). died ,1934 or 1935). born after 1920). died about 1923) . ___________________________. . __________________________________ __. Minors at date of suit (8-2-33). By the mortgage of September 22, 1920, Sheo Mangal Singh who was then karta of the family, Surajpal Singh, his nephew and Lakhpati Kunwar, his sister-in-law, mortgaged certain family property in favour of the appellant. This mortgage was given in consideration of a sum of Rs. 35,542-1-0 made up as follows : Item Rs. A. P. Rs. A. P 1. Promissory Note dated the 30th October, 1917,executed by Mahabul Singh. . . . . . . . . . . 4,153 0 0 2. " Due under the account book". . . . . . . . 461 0 0 [According to plaintiff's cash book, borrowedby Sheo Mangal Singh on December 22, 1918, forpurchasing linseed. ] Interest on the above two items. . 517 12 0

(3.) OF the items claimed : Nos. 1 and 2 have been disallowed by the High Court against all the respondents and the appellants do not now dispute this decision. Both Courts allowed item 9 as against the respondents and no appeal has been taken against this, decision.