SRIPADA VENKATA JAGANNADHARAO Vs. KANNEPALLI VENKATACHALAMAYYA SASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole for sale of the hypotheca of the family of the appellants and their father the first defendant.

(2.) The suit mortgage deed, Ex. P-1, was executed on 16 June, 1928, bythe first defendant alone. Prior to that, by Ex. D-1, on 23 August, 1922,the hypotheca was mortgaged in favour of one Vedula Jagannatham Bhukte. On his mortgage he filed O.S. No. 34 of 1934 for sale of the hypotheca. He impleaded not only the first defendant but also his sons, defendants 2 to 5, who also executed the mortgage through their father as guardian. In any case, they had to be impleaded under Order 34, Rule 1 as persons having interest in the secured properties. The present plaintiff was also impleaded, as required by Order 34, Rule 1 as a subsequent mortgagee. He filed a written statement alleging that the mortgage in that suit was not true and that his mortgage was executed for purposes binding on the present defendants 2 to 5, who were also defendants 2 to 5 in that suit. The first defendant was ex parte throughout. Defendants 2 to 5 filed written statements and thereafter remained ex parte. In that suit an issue was framed--as one had to be framed. Whether the mortgage bond in favour of the sixth defendant, dated 16th June, 1928, is true and binding on defendants 1to 5 and what is the amount due under the same?

(3.) The learned Judge considered the evidence adduced on that issue by the sixth defendant and found that the amount due under Exhibit I in favour of the sixth defendant was the principal amount of Rs. 30,000 and interest at the bond rate from its date till the date of payment fixed in the decree. The learned Judge held: It is obvious that Ex. I is supported by consideration as recited therein, and all the amounts were borrowed for valid necessities and therefore binding on defendants 1 to 5.