RAMANGIR Vs. ACHHERAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A great deal of the petition of appeal is irrelevant and the rest is untenable. This is admitted by the learned pleader for the appellant, who urges now only that he ought to be allowed to pay decretal amount in instalments or after a reasonable interval, so as to avoid the loss resulting from a sale of his property by the Court. That is hardly a matter in which interference in appeal would be possible, even if it were not admitted that the appellant has done nothing towards raising the money during the fourteen months that have elapsed since the decree was passed. But any how property belonging to him was attached and sold by auction in January last for Rs. 10,000, so that there is nothing more to be said or done about it.

(2.) IT happens that the property was the same share in a village that the appellant sold to the respondent for Rs. 9,500 in 1922 and that the respondent was the purchaser. The appellant is ordered by the decree to pay costs and interest, so that the net result of his repudiation of the sale of 1922 is that he has now sold the same property to the, same person and has got quite Rs. 1,500 less for it, to say nothing of what he may be ordered to pay in the other suit or of what this suit has cost him.

(3.) ON these facts the appellant pleads that he received only Rs. 2,620 of the stated consideration of the mortgage. But even if he never withdrew any of the money he left in deposit, it was paid to him before he could deposit it, and it-would be still there now for him to draw if he chose. But he distinctly admitted in the lower Court that he drew some amounts against the deposit, and he never stated that the total of those amounts was not Rs 1,380; indeed he said nothing about the total.