Click here to view full judgement.
Burkitt, J -
(1.) It is unnecessary for me to state the facts in the case. They have been fully dealt with in the judgment about to be pronounced by my brother Henderson, which I have had an opportunity of perusing. I concur in holding, as was done in the case of Dharam Singh V/s. Angan Lal (1899) I.L.R. 21 All. 301, that the lien can be enforced by sale of the respondents interest in the mortgaged property by reason of the pious duty incumbent on them of paying their father's lawful debts.
(2.) The amount for which they are liable is Rs. 275, with interest as set forth by my brother Henderson. I concur in the order proposed by him. A decree will be drawn up accordingly, giving the respondents six months from to-day, within which they can avoid sale by paying the sum now decreed against them. The appellant is entitled to proportionate coats in all Courts. Henderson, J.
(3.) On the 5 January 1877, one Data Bam, the father of a Mitakshara joint family, executed a mortgage in respect of 114 bighas in mauza Pular, in favour of the plaintiff-appellant to secure the sum of Rs. 99-8 with interest. That sum, it was stated by the plaintiff in his plaint in the present suit, was required for the purpose of paying Government revenue, and this statement, though not admitted, was not denied in the written statements of the defendants.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.