LAWS(PVC)-1924-6-78

RUKMINI KANTA CHAKRAWARTI Vs. BALDEO DAS BINANI

Decided On June 17, 1924
RUKMINI KANTA CHAKRAWARTI Appellant
V/S
BALDEO DAS BINANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The litigation, which has culminated in this appeal, relates to a property, known as 20, Gorachand Road, Alipore, situate within the jurisdiction of the District Court of the Parganas. The facts out of which it has arisen may be briefly stated.

(2.) The property in question belonged to a Hindu lady named Sushila Sundari Chowdhurani, who appears to have been in financial straits in the year 1902 and to have borrowed various sums of money from an attorney named Mohini Mohan Chatterjee. One of the promissory notes for Rs. 4,000 was endorsed by Mohini Mohan in favour of the plaintiff, the present appellant Rukmini Kanta Chakravarti, who brought a suit on it in the Original Side of the High Court and obtained a decree. The decree was transferred to Alipore and the plaintiff executed it, attached the disputed property, and purchased it at auction sale on the 12 August, 1915. The sale was in due course confirmed on the 30 March, 1916, and the plaintiff obtained delivery of possession on the 9 April, 1918.

(3.) In the meanwhile however, nearly seven years previous to this, vis., on the 4 August, 1911, Sushila Sundari had mortgaged the property in suit to the defendant, now respondent Baldeo Das Binani, for a sum of Rs. 18,000. As aha failed to pay within the time stipulated, Baldeo Das brought a suit against her in the year 1913 and obtained a preliminary decree on the 10 January, 1916, followed by a final decree which was passed on the 2nd July, 1917. It appears, however, that in the interval between the passing of the preliminary and final decrees Sushila Sundari had died on the 22nd April, 1916, i.e., some fifteen months before the making of the final decree, the mortgagee being apparently unaware of her death. Notwithstanding this the mortgagee put his decree into execution, purchased the property on the 12 June, 1918, and on the 26 August, 1918, was put into possession fey the Court ousting the plaintiff, who thereupon instituted the present suit to recover possession of the property from the mortgagee.