BINDA PRASAD Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are a little complicated, and to appreciate the result they have to be correctly understood.

(2.) Defendant 3, Nijabat Ali Khan, sold his property in village Chak Sakaria to defendant 4, Ahmad Khan, on 27 January 1920.

(3.) Ahmad Khan had not got the entire purchase money to pay to Nijabat Ali Khan, and therefore he secured the balance of the purchase money, namely Rs. 710, by executing a simple mortgage of Ghak Sakaria in favour of Nijabat Ali Khan. Defendant 5, Parshotam Das, held a promissory note against Nijabat Ali Khan. Parshotam Das instituted a suit, No. 189 of 1920, against Nijabat Ali Khan for recovery of the money due on the promissory note, and he obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining Nijabat Ali Khan from recovering the sum of Rs. 710 secured by mortgage in his favour from Ahmad Khan. We are told that a temporary injunction was also issued against Ahmad Khan restraining him from making payment to Nijabat Ali Khan, but we are not quite certain that this is true. Ahmad Khan was not a party to the suit on the promissory note, and therefore no temporary injunction could have been issued against him. In spite of the issue of the temporary injunction Nijabat Ali Khan sold his mortgagee rights to defendant 2, Ganga Paraad, on 22 October, 1920. Ganga Parsad instituted a suit for recovery of the mortgage money against Ahmad Khan and Nijabat Ali Khan and his suit was numbered as 41 of 1921. A preliminary decree was made in favour of Ganga Paraad on 9 March 1921. 3. Parshotam Das thereupon brought the suit, No 146 of 1921, against Ahmad Khan, Njiabat Ali Khan and Gauga Parsad to obtain a declaration that the transfer of the mortgagee rights by Nijabat Ali Khan in favour of Ganga Parsad and the decree made in favour of Ganga Parsad were fraudulent transactions and were not binding on Parshotam Das. This suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance on 11 July 1921.