DUNGAR SINGH Vs. MTMAID KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Buland shahr decreeing their claim in part. The I plaintiffs brought a suit asking for a declaration that hypothecation bond, -dated 20th October 1923, executed by defendant 1, Mt. Maid Kunwar, wife of Sita Ram, in favour of defendant 2 Daulat Ram was null and void and ineffectual against the plaintiffs and that the amount could not be realised from the property in dispute. Four items of property were mentioned in the plaint. The Court of first instance has granted a decree that the hypothecation bond is without consideration, and, therefore null and void and ineffectual against the plaintiffs but only in regard to a portion of the property in dispute which is in area 22 bighas, 10 biswas and that the rest of the claim has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts which gave rise to the present suit are as follows: The pedigree as stated in the plaint with certain additions is as follows:

(3.) The additions are that Lachhman had a widow, Mt. Sobha, and Ram Sukh had a daughter Mt. Maido. During the lifetime of Sitaram there was a mortgage-bond executed by him on 22 January, 1890 in favour of Phul. Singh for Rs. 99. He died in that year and his widow Mt. Maid Kunwar, defendant 1, succeeded to his estate. She proceeded to execute several bonds as follows: 13 September 1899 mortgage-bond in favour of Tulshi Ram for Rupees 500. This was in full payment of the earlier bond executed by her husband. 6 September 1911 Mortgage-bond for Rs. 800 by Mt. Maid Kunwar in favour of Tulshi Ram. 5 September 1923 Mortgage-bond in renewal for Rs. 1,600 by Mt. Maid Kunwar in favour of Sohan Lal and Puran Mal. The terms of this bond are that the interest was to be 12 annas per cent per mensem with yearly rests. Within less than two months of the execution of this mortgage-bond Mt. Maid Kunwar executed another mortgage- bond on 20 October 1923 for Rupees 1,675 in favour of defendant 2, Daulat Ram. The entire amount of this bond is to be used for paying off the bond of Rs. 1,600 to Tulshi Ram. The rate of interest on this bond was 11 annas per cent per mensem, the interest to be paid every six months compoundable. The rate of interest is therefore higher than in the bond of 5 September 1923, because it was compoundable with six monthly rests instead of yearly rests. It is the bond of 20 October 1923 which has been assailed by the plaintiffs.