RAM DAYAL Vs. AMINUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for sale instituted by the respondents against the appellants and several others.

(2.) So far back as on 17 May 1912 two persons Manohar and Mt. Chandan Kunwar, since deceased, executed the bond in suit hypothecating immovable property for the sum of Rs. 300, Manohar is alive and was a party to the suit in the Court below. As regards Mt. Chandan Kunwar the plaintiffs case was that defendant 1 was her daughter but as it was contested by certain people that she was not Mt. Chandan Kunwar's daughter the plaintiffs impleaded the defendants other than defendants 1 and 2 "as reversioners to the estate of Mt. Chandan Kunwar's husband Bechi Lal.

(3.) Several issues were raised in the ease including whether Manohar had any interest in the property mortgaged. The reversioners denied that there was any legal necessity for the loan. They pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and they also pleaded that the interest was excessive.