It is also seen, from the said statement, that the appellant has given credit to payment of a sum of pound 29,000/ towards the principal amount and, as such, a balance of E48,500/ remained due as principal.
The appellant had claimed this amount, as well as the balance of interest payable, in the sum of E17,460/ , as being due upto May 1, 1953.
The appellant, in companysequence, prayed for payment of these amounts, stated to be due to him under this mortgage.
10 and 11, of the Money Lenders Act, did number apply.
ex parte decree.
The appellant demanded the repayment of the amounts due under these mortgages, but the mortgagor, so far as the mortgage of 1906 was companycerned, repudiated the same on the ground that the entire transaction had been wiped off, by virtue of s. 10 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act, 1939 Orissa Act III of 1939 hereinafter called the Money Lenders Act , inasmuch as he had paid more than double the original principal amount, as admitted by the mortgagee.
Both the appeals have been disposed of by the Board, by a companymon judgment, dated January 4, 1963.
The appellant had also claimed certain other amounts which, according to him, were payable as companymission and premium as per the terms companytained in the mortgage deed.
But attempts to execute the decree in India did number succeed, as will be seen from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in I G. Investment Trust v. Raja of Khalikote 1 .
The High Court held that the decree obtained by the appellant in London was number executable in India.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 4, 1963 of the Orissa High Court in Misc.
The appellant, however, did number accept this repudiation and, in companysequence, the companypany took legal proceedings in London and obtained an.
The Claims Officer accepted the plea of the mortgagor that the mortgage of December 18, 1906, is a possessory mortgage and the mortgagees were in possession and enjoyment of the properties for 15 years from the date of the mortgage.
1935, under which a sum of pound 65,0001 was borrowed by the mortgagor.
There were also certain other objections, raised by the mortgagor to the claim made by the mortgagee by way of companymission and premium.
850 of 1964.
94 95 of 1960.
The rate of interest payable under the mortgage was 6 per annum.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The second mortgage was executed on December 18, 1906, under which a sum of pound 77,500/ was borrowed by the mortgagor.
The equivalent of all these amounts, in Indian currency, was also given by the appellant in the claim petition.
Sen and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
Appeal No.
94 of 1960.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, on certificate, is directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court, dated January 4, 1963, and rendered in Miscellaneous Appeals Nos.
The mortgagor companytested the claim of the appellant before the Claims Officer.
Deepak Dutta Choudhuri and R. N. Sachthey, for respondant No.
L. Sanghi, for respondent Nos.
The third mortgage was executed on October 21.
Even according to the appellant, in respect of this mort gage, the respondents had paid a total sum of pound 1,77,349/ , by way of interest which is more than twice the principal amount companyered by the mortgage.
1 and 2.
He pleaded that the claim of the mortgagee, under the mortgage, was numberlonger subsisting and that the mortgage liability had been discharged by payments and by operation of law.
