SRIMATI ISHANI DASI Vs. RAJENDRANATH JASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case from which these appeals arise are as follows. Two brothers, Kartik Rakshit and Ganesh Rakshit, borrowed Rs. 500 on mortgage from the wife of one Asakrit Charidra Chowdhuri in Chaitra 1313 B.S. in order to pay off debts due to various creditors. They mortgaged all their property in this deed. In the following year Kartik died, leaving two daughters who are still minors and are the plaintiffs. In Sraban 1317 B.S. no part of the debt on the mortgage had been paid off and Ganesh entered into a fresh arrangement; he executed two kat kobalas in favour of the same lady, one for Rs. 100 and covering 2 bighas of land, and another for Rs. 400 in respect of 7 bighas and a quarter and a kistibandi bond for the sum of Rs. 256. By the kat kobalas the principal of the original mortgage was satisfied, and the kistibandi bond was for the unpaid interest that had accrued. Under the terms of the kat kabalas the creditor was to remain in possession until the sums mentioned were paid to her; and from the usufruct she was to pay the rent due to the landlord, and to take the balance as interest. Under the kistibandi bond Ganesh was to pay Rs. 64 per annum from 1318 to 1321. In 1318 and 1319 Ganesh executed three conveyances, selling 3 bighas for Rs. 150 to the contesting defendants in Suit No. 97 on Jaist 13th 1318, nine bighas and a quarter for Rs. 600 to the contesting defendants in Suit No. 69, and one cotta and a quarter for Rs. 119 to the contesting defendants in Suit No. 98 on Chaitra 8th, 1319. With the purchase-money he paid off the sums due under the kat kobalas and the kistibandi bond.

(2.) His nieces were married in 1316 and 1317, and they have brought three suits through their husbands for a declaration that the conveyances executed by Ganesh did not affect their eight annas interest, and for recovering possession of their share as successors-in-interest of the deceased Kartik.

(3.) The Courts below have agreed in dismissing the suits and the plaintiffs have appealed.