NILADRI SAHU Vs. MAHANT CHATURBHUJ DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated March 17, 1923, dismissing an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttaak, dated February 28, 1922, who in a suit for sale on a mortgage had passed a money decree only against defendant No. 1, but had, in other respects, dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

(2.) The defendant, the mortgagor, is the Mahant of the Muth of a Thakur or deity of the Vaishnavitea called Sri Jagannath Mahaprobhu at a place called Puri. It includes a temple with idols in it. The defendant, with, as it is alleged, the view of increasing the income of the Muth, built as an addition to it a lodging house, where Rajahs and other rich devotees visiting the Muth might obtain during their visit comfortable lodgings, and built in addition a large hall where food might be supplied to those devotees who might visit the Muth and worship at it.

(3.) The revenue of the Muth, though sufficient to meet the ordinary expenses of the worship in it, was in sufficient to meet in addition the cost of the construction, maintenance and management of these new buildings. The defendant was accordingly, from the year 1891 downwards, obliged to borrow from time to time from moneylenders on notes of baud, setting forth the purpose of the loans, various sums of money, bearing interest at Rs. 2 per mensem or more. The actual sum expended on the construction of these pucca buildings, as they were styled, only amounted to Rs. 9,337, so that the outlay could not be considered to have been of an extravagant character. Owing, however, to the very high rate o interest charged by the lenders, the defendant's indebtedness to these latter amounted by November, 1906, to the large sum of Rs. 25,000. To meet this indebtedness, the defendant, the Shebait, on November 6, 1906, borrowed from the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 25,000, bearing interest at a rate only equal to one-half the rate he had bean paying on the loans obtained from moneylenders, namely, 1 per cent, par mensem, and in order to secure the repayment of this loan and the interest secruing upon it, he gave to the plaintiff a mortgage of certain properties which were at the time, and still admittedly are, debottar properties belonging to the Math, and not to any extent or in any respect the properties of the defendant. These properties are enumerated and described in a schedule attached to the mortgage deed.