LACHHMI NARAIN Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of two suits on foot, of two mortgage-deeds, both dated 3 December 1917, executed by one Bakhat Bahadur, in which, the same properties, seven in number, were hypothecated. One of the deeds was for Rs. 36,000 and the other for Rs. 1,950. The deed for Rupees, 36,000 was in favour of four sets of mortgagees, while the other was in favour of only three out of those four. Most of the mortgage money was left with the mortgagees for payment to? certain prior mortgagees, who had encumbrances on the mortgaged properties. A peculiar feature of the deeds is that the sum advanced by each of the mortgagees was specified in the deed, making up the entire sum advanced under them. The details are. as follows:

(2.) The interest of the original mortgagor in the mortgaged properties has since passed to a number of persons who purchased it at sales held in execution of decrees against him. On 8 November 1929, the second and the third of the four sets of the mortgagees instituted suit No. 49 of 1929 for recovery of the amounts due to them under the mortgages by sale of the entire mortgaged property. They impleaded the other two sets of the mortgagees and the representatives-in- interest of the original mortgagor. On 3 December 1929, the first and fourth sets of the mortgagees instituted suit No. 55 of 1929 for recovery of what was due to them under the mortgages, impleading their co-mortgagees (plaintiffs in suit No. 49 of 1929) and the representatives-in-interest of the mortgagor.

(3.) Written statements were filed by the transferees, who contested the claims of both sets of the plaintiffs in the two suits. Their main pleas were that : (1) The deeds in suit were not genuine and for consideration. (2) The properties to which the mortgages in suit relate were under attachment in execution of decrees in which the contesting defendants purchased, and therefore the mortgages were invalid. (3) Each of the suits being only for a portion of the mortgage money was bad and therefore not maintainable; and (4) one of the mortgaged properties, namely, mahal Ganga Ram Gir in village Barsua, having been exempted from the claim in suit No. 49, that suit was bad.