JANARDANA VISHNU AND RAVJI MANGESH Vs. ANANT LAXMANSHET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises on this appeal (No. 182 of 1905) is whether the appellant is entitled to piority of payment in respect of the amount due on four instruments being Exhibits 45, 44, 41 and 42. Of these Exhibits 45 and 44 were executed in 1847, 41 in 1848, and 42 in 1868; and the appellant claims the benefit of them. He also claims the benefit of the mortgage created by an instrument Exhibit 43.

(2.) The lower appellate Court has decided against the appellant relying on Rajmal V/s. Shivaji. (1902) L.R. R. 27 Bom. 154. But that case really is not applicable as the decision cited by the learned Assistant Judge turned altogether on the fact that it was conceded and had to be conceded in the absence of registration that the document there under consideration did not create a charge.

(3.) It seems to us therefore that we are in no way concerned with the doctrine which forbids anything that would amount to a clog on the equity of redemption.