HUKUMCHAND Vs. STATE BANK OF INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is presented by defendant No. 4, Lilabai, wife of Dhulchand, and legal representatives of defendant No. 5, Smt. Kanchanbai, wife of Hukumchand, against the judgment and decree dated May 12, 1978, passed by Shri V. S. Yadav, Seventh Additional District Judge, Indore, in C. S. No. 24-A of 1976. By the said judgment and preliminary decree, defendant No. 1, Himmatlal and Co. , Maharani Road, Indore, a partnership firm, the legal representatives of defendant No. 2, Jawaharmal, and defendant No. 3, Lakhmichand, were jointly and severally, ordered to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 86,555 with interest at the rate of 6. 5 per cent, per annum (shown in schedule A of the plaint) in the manner set out in the judgment and redeem the property mortgaged with the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 within a period of six months from the date of decree. On failure to redeem the mortgaged property within six months of the decree, the final decree for sale of the mortgaged property was ordered to be passed.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 3, Lakhmichand, had, vide sankalp dated April 9, 1959, and gift deed dated December 28, 1969, made a gift of house No, 58, Maharani Road, Indore, one of the items of mortgaged property, in favour of defendants Nos. 4 to 6 (Smt. Lilabai, Smt. Kanchanbai and Ramanlal) and sold plot No. 101, Pardeshipura, Indore, on June 8, 1960, to Dhulchand, husband of Lilabai (defendant No. 4, appellant No. 8) and Hukumchand, husband of the deceased-defendant No. 5, Kanchanbai. The learned Additional District Judge held that the gift deed did not confer any title on the donees and the sale deed executed by defendant No. 3, Lakhmichand, also did not confer any title on the vendee. The present appellants and respondent No. 5, Ramanlal, are the donees and vendees of the mortgaged property.

(3.) THE plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter called "the plaintiff"), State Bank of Indore, constituted under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959), filed a suit against the appellants-defendants, Himmatlal and Co. , Jawaharmal and Lakhmichand (since deceased his legal representatives brought on record), claiming a preliminary decree for Rs. 86,555 with future interest and directions to the defendants to redeem the mortgaged property within the stipulated time and on failure to pay the amount within the time given, a final decree for sale of the property mortgaged. The plaintiff also claimed a personal decree against the defendants in case the entire decretal amount with interest was not realised from the sale of the mortgaged property.