RATTI RAM AND SONS Vs. MOTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Allahabad reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge at Farrukhabad. The High Court granted decree to the respondents Moti Lal, Ram Kunwar and Kashi Prasad, against the appellants for rupees 10,994-11- 9 in name of damages with interest thereon, and made a declaration that these respondents were entitled to remain in possession as lessees of factory premises owned by the Indian Glass Factory Limited, who are the fifth respondents, until such time as they should be ejected by process of law. The original plaintiffs in the suit were Dwarka Prasad and the respondent Kashi Prasad. Dwarka Prasad died during the dependency of the suit and the respondents Moti Lal and Ram Kunwar were substituted in his place. It is not necessary for the purposes of the appeal to distinguish between the original and the present plaintiffs, and for the sake of brevity they will be called hereinafter the respondents; respondent 5 will be referred to as the Factory Company. The suit was in its earlier stages complicated by the circumstance that besides the appellants, a firm styled J. H. Gokul Das Dasji was also a defendant. But that firm is in no way concerned in this appeal and no further reference will be made to it.

(2.) The appellants, in order to satisfy a decree for debt which they had obtained against the Factory Company, attached the company's factory on 17 December 1931 and removed and sold part of the roofing and certain glassware lying in the premises at the date of the attachment. The respondents were the holders of a mortgage over the factory and its fixtures, fittings and tools, granted on 14 October 1931 by the company in security for Rs. 7000 being part of a larger debt then due by the mortgagors. They were also tenants of the factory premises under a lease of the same date. The questions at issue are:-(1) whether the appellants by removing the roofing committed an actionable wrong against the respondents, either as mortgagees or as lessees and, if so, what damages are recoverable; (a) whether any of the glassware removed and sold by the appellants was the property of the respondents; (3) whether the appellants attached and removed a sum of Rs. 48 in cash which belonged to the appellants. (Respondents?)

(3.) The circumstances out of which the suit arose have been sufficiently explained in the judgments of the Courts in India and such limited reference to them as is now necessary will be made in considering the several questions now to be decided.