SHAMCHANDRA RAMPRATAP Vs. BHIKAMCHAND GANESHLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship, after setting out facts and issues, proceeded.] The first two issues raise somewhat important questions of law, and it will be convenient to dispose of them at the outset.

(2.) On the question of jurisdiction reliance is placed for defendants Nos. 3a and 3b on the decision of Pratt J. in Pranlal V/s. Goculdas (1825) 27 Bom. L.R. 570 in which he has held that the High Court of Bombay has no original jurisdiction to grant a declaration as to which out of two or more competing mortgagees is a prior mortgagee, when the property is situated, as here, outside Bombay. For the plaintiffs it is pointed out that in a suit by a puisne mortgagee, a prior mortgagee of property outside the jurisdiction was added as a party by Strachey J. in Sorabji V/s. Rattonj (1898) I.L.R. 22 Bom. 701 and the decision of Pratt J. above was referred to with disapproval by Marten C.J. in the course of the Full Bench decision in Hatim-bhai V/s. Framroz Binshaw(1926-27) 29 Bom. L.R. 498, 545.

(3.) It is, therefore, necessary for me either to follow the view of Pratt J. above, and hold that I have no jurisdiction in respect of defendants Nos. 3a and 3b, or to give reasons for differing from him, as I am not bound by the decision of a single Judge sitting on the Original Side. It is a matter of surprise that a point of this importance has not been authoritatively decided in Bombay and the practice settled once for all.