(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff whose suit for enforcing a mortgage bond was decreed in part by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, but was dismissed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge.
(2.) One Bisu Singh had four sons, Rajkumar, Rupan, Ramdhari and Shivanandan. Rupan died leaving a widow. Shivanandan's only son, Ram Manorath, was dead when the bond in suit, Ex. 1, was executed. Rajkumar had two sons, Tribeni and Ramratan. Tribeni died during the pendency of the appeal before the Additional, District Judge. Ramdhari, who is dead, has left sons and grandsons. Exhibit 1, the mortgage bond, was excuted by Ramratan and Ramdhari. In the bond it is recited that the money Rs. 1500, was required for the marriage of Ramdhari's grand- daughter and for payment of petty debts to creditors. According to the plaintiff there were two repayments one of Rs. 500 and the other of Rs. 751. After taking these repayments into account and remitting Rs. 825 odd; claim was laid at Rs. 2173 odd, the rate of interest mentioned in the bond being 1 p.c.p.m. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 1749 allowing six. months as the period of grace and adding that if the decree is not satisfied within this period, the plaintiff will be at liberty to realise the decretal amount with future interest at 6 p.c.p.a. by the sale of the mortgaged property.
(3.) There was an appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, and this was heard by the learned 1 Additional District Judge. The appellate Court held that there was no legal necessity for the loan. The learned Additional District Judge pointed out that there are discrepancies between, the recitals in the bond and the evidence in Court. The bond states, as already mentioned above, that the loan was required for meeting marriage expenses and also for payment of petty debts. In evidence the plaintiff stated that the loan was necessary for marriage and to meet khalihan and bihan expenses. The evidence is silent as to what portion of the loan was required for meeting the marriage expenses. The plaintiff further stated in his evidence that some money was also required to meet the education expenses of Punit Narain Singh, one of the defendants.