DEBI PROSAD CHOWDHURY Vs. GOLAP BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) But see Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh (1907) I.L.R. 30 All. 1; L. R. 35 I. A. 1.

(2.) In that case their Lordships held the consent of the kinsmen to be evidence of the bond fides of the transaction. That, moreover, was a case of sale. Their Lordships refused to extend the Bengal doctrine of Nobokishore s case (1884) I.L.R. 10 Calc. 1102. further, and to apply the rule of sale to mortgages would be to extend the operation of the Bengal doctrine.

(3.) It was held by the Privy Council in Behari Lal v. Mad ho Lal Ahir Gayawal (1891) I.L.R. 19 Calc. 236; L. R. 19 I. A. 19 I. A. 30. that the widow must withdraw her whole interest. A mortgage is not a case of withdrawal of the entire interest.