GIAN CHAND, ETC Vs. SURRINDER KUMAR, ETC
LAWS(P&H)-1950-8-17
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 16,1950

GIAN CHAND, ETC Appellant
VERSUS
SURRINDER KUMAR, ETC Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Surinder Kumar, Darshan Kumar, Shish Kumar and Subhash Chander minor sons of Ghanaya Lal instituted a suit out of which this appeal has arisen, for recovery of Rs. 5392/2/0 on the basis of a registered mortgage deed for Rs. 6000 made on the 24th of October, 1932 by Chhaju Ram, Sant Ram sons of Buta Ram and Sat Pal, Dharam Pal minor sons of Shankar Das in favour of Guranditta Mal, maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs pleaded that Guranditta Mal had before his death bequeathed the mortgagee rights to the plaintiffs and that after deducting the amount of Rs. 3850 received on account of principal and interest they were entitled to recover Rs. 5392/2/- by sale of the mortgaged property. Defendant No. 5 was impleaded on the ground that he was a subsequent mortgagee of a part of the mortgaged property.
(2.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded that the mortgage was without consideration to the extent of Rs. 1470 while defendants Nos. 3 and 4 disputed the validity of the will alleged to have been made by Guranditta Mal in favour of the plaintiffs and maintained that the plaintiffs had not locus standi to maintain the suit. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 further maintained that during their minority their 1/4th share could not have been mortgaged by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and that they were not bound by the mortgage in question which had not been made for their benefit.
(3.) Upon the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Have the plaintiffs a locus standi to maintain the present suit as successors in interest of Guranditta deceased ? 2. Did defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for themselves and on behalf of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 execute the mortgage deed in dispute for consideration, and if so whether the mortgage was also effected for the benefit of the minor defendants Nos. 3 and 4 ? 3. Has any portion of the property in dispute been sold to Amar Nath by the defendants, if so, what is the effect on the present claim of the plaintiff ? 4. Whether defendants No. 5 is entitled to any relief ? If so, of what nature ? 5. To what amount and relief were the plaintiffs entitled ?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.