KEDAR NATH Vs. HAR GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the loss said to have been occasioned to him by the delay of the defendant in paying certain money, which was left with him by the plaintiff for the payment of a prior mortgage.

(2.) On the 22 August, 1908 the plaintiff executed a mortgage bond in favour of Bohra Khetpal for Rs. 5,000 repayable with interest at 6 per cent. per annum, and mortgaged two villages, Araila and Sikrari, as security for its repayment. On the 7 June 1913 the plaintiff sold the village Araila to Har Govind, the defendant- respondent, for Rs. 5,000 and left the entire consideration with him for payment to the prior mortgagee. That money was to have been paid according to the sale- deed in part satisfaction of the prior mortgage. But Har Govind did not pay that money till the 22 September, 1916. One of the conditions entered in the sale- deed was that if the vendee failed to pay the money left with him for payment to Bohra Khetpal thus occasioning a suit in Court (aur naubat nalish ki adalat tak pahunche) then the vendee shall be responsible for costs and interest on the money aforesaid from the date of the deposit.

(3.) Subsequently the village Sikrari was proclaimed for sale in execution of a decree for money obtained by Peare Lal against the plaintiff, and in order to pay up the money due by him to Peare Lal and the balance of the mortgage money due to Bohra Khetpal and certain other debts due by him to other creditors, the plaintiff sold that village to Maqsud Ali Khan for Rs. 10,000, out of which Rs. 3,174 were paid by him to Bohra Khetpal in satisfaction of the remaining money due on the mortgage.