SARADINDU CHAKRAVARTI Vs. GOSTA BEHARI PRAMANICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by defendant No. 4. The plaintiff's case is that the predecessors of defendants Nos. 1--3 executed a mortgage in his favour in 1310 B.S.; he then brought a suit on the mortgage against the representatives of the mortgagors, and against the defendant No. 4 as a purchaser, in 1898 and in execution of his decree caused the property to be sold in 1909, when it was brought by Parameswar Ghose, father of defendants Nos. 5, 7, and servant of the plaintiff, as benamida for the plaintiff. It is beyond doubt that there was such a mortgage, that the plaintiff obtained a decree and that the property was bought by Parameswar.

(2.) The plaintiff went on to say that the father of the defendants Nos. 1--3 then entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, by which the defendants were to pay off the plaintiff's dues by the end of 1322 B.S., meanwhile remaining in possession, and in default the plaintiff was to take khas possession after the end of 1322 B.S. The defendants Nos. 1--3 and defendant No. 4 did, as a matter of fact, remain in possession and according to the plaintiff, it was by virtue of this arrangement. The plaintiff further alleged that only part of the total sum was paid, so he claimed khas possession of the land, with mesne profits, or, in the alternative, a decree for the unpaid balance.

(3.) The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree for khas possession, and also for mesne profits.