LAWS(PVC)-1882-3-2

ALBERT CHARLES RAYNOR Vs. MUSSOORIE BANK LIMITED

Decided On March 21, 1882
Albert Charles Raynor Appellant
V/S
Mussoorie Bank Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case their Lordships have felt almost more difficulty in deciding whether or not to hear the appeal than they have in disposing of it when heard, and in order to shew the nature of that difficulty it is necessary to state the precise course which this titigation has taken.

(2.) IN the month of December, 1889, Captain William Raynor died, having left a will which he expressed in the following terms:--" I give to my dearly beloved wife, Mary Anne Raynor, the whole of my property, both real and personal, including my Government promissory notes, Delhi Bank shares, my house at Ferozepore, No. 50, together with all my plate and plated ware, and whatever money, furniture, carriages, horses, &c, may be in my possession at the time of my decease, together with all moneys due or which may afterwards become due, feeling confident that she will act justly to our children in dividing the same when no longer required by her." And he appointed his son William Joseph Raynor, and his wife Mary Anne Raynor, to be his executors. Mrs. Raynor alone proved the will.

(3.) IN the year 1876 the Mussoorie Bank, who are the Appellants, instituted two suits against Mrs. Raynor's executors for the purpose of recovering the sum of Rs. 25,000 advanced by the bank to Mrs. Raynor upon the security of thirty Delhi Bank shares and of certain houses. One of these suits, No. 41 of 1876, was instituted in the Small Cause Court at Dehra Doon, and on the 5th of December, 1876, the bank obtained a 'decree under which the thirty shares were attached. The other suit, No. 115 of 1876, instituted before the Subordinate Judge of Dehra Doon, was to enforce the bank's mortgage upon the houses. On the 12th of December, 1876, the bank obtained a money decree for the sum of Rs. 32,121. 2a. 4p., but the Subordinate Judge refused to give them any specific relief on the basis of the mortgage. His principal reason appears to have been that the nature and extent of Mrs. Raynor's interest in the mortgaged properties was uncertain.