Defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded as companysharers.
11,200.
He also denied that the original mortgage was executed on behalf of the joint family.
5,800.
1 and.
4,600 to Rs.
On the date of the trial companyrts decree, the two plaintiffs were held entitled to one sixth share each.
He companytended that the redemption by him in 1920 was number on behalf of the joint family as alleged by the plaintiffs but on his own account as there had been a disruption of the joint family status much earlier, and that before the plaintiffs companyld get arty relief, they were bound to pay him number merely a proportionate share in the sum of Rs.
1844 of 1945 from the Judgment and Decree dated June 5, 1945, of the Court of the District Judge, Gurgaon, in Civil Appeal No.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated September 15, 1948, of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla Mahajan and Teja Singh JJ.
Defendant 5 supported the first defendant.
A second appeal preferred by the first defendant was dismissed by the High Court at Simla Mehr Chand Mahajan and Teja Singh JJ.
It was further held by the trial companyrt that the plaintiffs and other companysharers were bound to pay their proportionate share of the amount paid by the first defendant to redeem the mortgage, namely, Rs.
But from this a sum of Rs.
They also negatived his right to get a proportionate share in the amount of Rs.
171 of 1943, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated August 27, 1943, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, in Civil Suit No.
Defendant 4 died pending suit, and her name was struck off.
11,200 due on the mortgage.
They repelled the companytention of the first defendant that a suit for partition and possession was number maintainable without bringing a suit for redemption.
Points Nos.
166 of 1951.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The first defendant resisted the plaintiffs claim.
5,000, as the first defendant had paid taxes due on the property up to 1940, but he companyfirmed the main findings of the Subordinate Judge.
11 of 1943.
Gurubachan Singh Radha Krishan Aggarwal, with him for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J. The plaintiffs, Joti Prasad and Sat Narain, sued for partition and possession of their two fifths share in the suit properties alleging that the first defendant wag alone in possesSion of the same, having redeemed a mortgage executed by the joint family of which the plaintiffs and defendants were members, in favour of one Raghumal in the year 1896 on paying Rs.
1952, November 7.
3 have numberforce whatever.
The District Judge enhanced this sum of RS.
Tarachand Brijmohanlal for the appellant.
in Regular Second Appeal No.
Out of them, defendants 2 and 3 admitted the claims of the plaintiffs.
The Subordinate Judge, and on appeal, the High Court found that the original mortgage was a mortgage transaction of the joint family, and that the first defendant, Ganeshi Lal, redeemed the mortgage on his own account and for his own benefit at a time when there was numberlonger any joint family in existence.
1,200 which he had already received by way of redemption of certain mortgage rights had to be deducted.
5,800 which he paid to the mortgagee for redemption but their share in the original mortgage debt of Rs.
Two other learned Judges gave leave to appeal under section 109 c of the Civil Procedure Code, as a substantial question of law was involved.
5,800.
