KRISHNA KISOR DE Vs. NAGENDRABALA CHAUDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the seventh defendant in a suit on a mortgage-bond executed by the first six defendants in favour of the plaintiff on the 13 February 1915 to secure a loan of Rs. 12,000 which was made re payable on the 12 April 1516 and was to carry interest at nine- and-a-half percent per annum with half yearly rests. The right, title and interest of the mortgagors in the hypothecated property was sold in execution of a decree for money at the instance of one of their creditors an I was purchased by the seventh defendant on the 20th June 1916 in the name of his son in law, the eighth defendant, who executed a release in his favour on the 25 January 1917. The mortgagee instituted the present suit on the 20th February It 18 for realisation of the mortgage dues and joined as defendants the mortgagors as also the purchasers of the equity of redemption.

(2.) The mortgagors did not enter appearance, and the claim was resisted by the seventh defendant alone who urged that the bond had not been executed in conformity with Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, and was net a bona Me document executed for consideration, but was in fact a colourable deed brought about with a view to defraud the unsecured creditors of the mortgagors. It was farther alleged that the stipulation as to payment of interest and compound interest was an unconscionable bargain. On these pleadings, five issues were raised in the following termes 1. Was the mortgage bond in suit duly executed and attested? 2. Was there any consideration for the bond in suit?

(3.) Is the plaintiff entitled to get compound interest as claimed?