JUGAL SINGH ALIAS JUGAL KISHORE Vs. LOCHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Lochan Singh plaintiff- respondent to enforce a hypothecation -bond dated 6 December 1928 executed by one Darbari Lal to secure a sum of Rs. 4000. Darbari Lal is dead and is now represented by respondents 2 to 4. The appellant Jugal Singh alias Jugal Kishore is a transferee of the mortgaged property and has been impleaded as such. It appears that one Mt. Mul Kunwar, widow of one Lala Hoti Lal who died in the year 1869 was in possession of the zamindari property in dispute situated in village Nehrai, pargana Hathras, district Aligarh holding a life interest therein. She made certain alienations in favour of certain persons and Darbari Lal as a reversioner of Lala Hoti Lal brought a suit No. 31 of 1928 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh against the alienees from the widow to recover the property as well as the mesne profits. The suit was decreed conditional on the payment of Rs. 1655 in Court. Darbari Lal obtained this decree on 17 November 1928 and a few days after that on 6 December 1928 the present mortgage was executed.

(2.) One Rajan Lal had a simple money decree No. 597 of 1928 against Darbari Lal. In execution of this decree he had the zamindari property in village Nehrai sold and it was purchased by one Champa Ram. Subsequently on 21 August 1929, Champa Ram sold the property to Jugal Singh alias Jugal Kishore appellant who thus became the owner of the mortgaged zamindari property. Jugal Singh paid Rs. 1655 under the decree No. 31 of 1928 and got possession over the property. He is thus impleaded as the person in possession of the mortgaged property. Jugal Singh alone contested this suit. He denied the execution of the mortgage and pleaded that it was without consideration. He further urged that Darbari Lal was not the owner of the property in dispute, nor was he in its possession and there-fore he was not entitled to mortgage the same. It was also pleaded that the defendant-appellant was the purchaser from the ostensible owner and was protected by Section 41, T.P. Act, and that the suit was barred by time. The appellant also claimed the benefit of the agriculturists Belief Act for a reduction of the interest and further pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to interest and costs as he had not complied with the provisions of Secs.32 and 34, Agriculturists Relief Act.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge framed as many as 10 issues and finding each one of them against the defendant decreed the claim in full. He however made it clear in the operative part of the decree that excepting the rights under the decree the rest of the property will be sold. The defendant Jugal Singh has come in appeal and the grounds raised on his behalf are: (1) That the bond in suit was not validly executed and attested and for consideration; (2) That the rights under decree No. 31 of 1928 were not immovable properties and Darbari Lal did not own any property on the date of the mortgage and therefore he could not make a mortgage of the. same; (3) That the defendants were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice; (4) That the claim was barred by limitation; (5) That the defendant-appellant was entitled to the benefit of the Agriculturists Relief Act; (6) That the entire property could not be sold in lieu of the mortgage money.