ANATHNATH DEB Vs. PORESHNATH MOOKERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this appeal, which is from a decision of the High Court at Calcutta on an appeal from the District Court, is stated by the learned Chief Justice in giving the judgment of the High Court, in which he says:--

(2.) IT appears from what has been stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that in this suit Ishan Chunder put in a written statement to this effect on the 7th of November, 1872, and the suit was dismissed on the 18th of November, 1872. The learned Chief Judge proceeds:--

(3.) THEIR Lordships think that is a right conclusion; that, looking to what took place, Poreshnath cannot be considered as having put himself, by reason of his purchase at the sale which he had brought about in execution of his decree on the mortgage bond, in a better position than he was in as mortgagee taking from Ishan Chunder. It is admitted that, if he had claimed as a mortgagee or as an assignee of Ishan Chunder, he would be estopped; and their Lordships think that he is substantially in the same position, that he did not by purchasing in this way put himself in a better position, and consequently that he is estopped by the statement which Ishan Chunder made, and that the decree of the High Court is correct.