SOUDHAMINI DAS GUPTA Vs. SATISH CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case to which these two appeals relate are confusing and complicated, and the parties have not chosen to place before us either all the relevant papers or their arguments in a comprehensible form. The substance of the contentions that have been urged however it is not difficult to understand once the facts are appreciated.

(2.) In a mortgage suit for sale in which the mortgagor and certain puisne mortgagees were impleaded as defendants the decree passed by the trial Court was taken on appeal to this Court by the heirs of the mortgagor and was varied by consent. The relevant terms of the decree as varied were the following: 1. One of the mortgaged properties. namely No. 1, had been sold at an auction for arrears of rent due to the landlords; and the plaintiff mortgagee had taken possession of it, having deposited the decretal amount under Section 171, Ben. Ten. Act. The plaintiff's gave up possession of that property. 2. A receiver was to be appointed in respect of all the properties and he was to remain in possession until the sale of the properties and until delivery of possession to the purchaser, and would pay all arrears of rent due on account of the mortgaged properties.

(3.) An account was to be taken for the period during which the plaintiff mortgagee was in possession of property No. 1. Such amounts as was actually realized by her and also what could be so realized but for her wilful default, would be deducted from such amounts as she would be entitled to under Sec. 76, T.P. Act, and Section 171, Ben. Ten. Act.