They were given six months time to pay up the amount with further interest at 6 per annum on the principal amount till realisation.
The share of defendant No.
If the amount was number paid the mortgages were to stand foreclosed.
This decree was made against defendants 1, 4 and 5.
Could a decree be passed against respondent No.
5 number having himself executed the instruments sued upon?
On this view the High Court dis agreed with the companyclusion of the trial companyrt.
Are the findings on issues 1 to 6 in the present suit barred on the principle of res judicata because the subject matter of these issues was also the subject matter of identical issues in the previous litigation finally decided between the, parties ?
43 of 1960 from original decree.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 21, 22, 1965 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Appeal No.
In case the plaintiffs claim deserved to be decreed then in the trial companyrts view there had to be three decrees because there were three mortgages companyering three separate properties.
The companyrts were also.
In the opinion of the High Court the plaintiff was doing moneylending business in Yeotmal District and had obtained the requisite licence for that district in August, 1947 which was thereafter regularly renewed.
The companyclusion of the trial companyrt that the decision in the previous suit operated as res judicata was upheld.
M. Tarkunde, V. N. Swami and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants.
C. Chagla, Rameshwar Nath and Swaranjit Sodhi, for the respondent.
1,60,000.
If it is held that the documents were number attested so far as defendants 2 and 3 are companycerned, what will be the effect on the liability of defendants 2 and 3 ?
This was in Yeotmal District for which the plaintiff held the necessary certificate.
Were the documents duly attested vis a vis respondents 2 and 3 who had appended their signatures to the documents ?
80,000 on the basis of the three mortgages and a further sum of Rs.
The suit against defendants 2 and 3 was dismissed without companyts.
It, however.
Seven additional issues were framed on the amended pleas.
The transaction in question was held to be an isolated transaction which did number clothe the plaintiff with the character of a moneylender carrying on the business of moneylending in Chanda District.
observed that the companyrt would have numbermally granted time to the plaintiff to produce the necessary certificate if the Act had been held applicable.
1982 of 196 6.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the final result the plaintiff was held entitled to a decree for the principal sum of Rs.
The suit for foreclosure of three mortgages was instituted on December 1, 1950.
133 i a of the Constitution by Gajanan and his two sons Janardhan and Nanaji who figured as defendants 1, 4 and 5 respectively in the suit instituted by Seth Brindaban, respondent in this appeal.
As regards the liability of defendants 2 and 3, they were held number to be bound by the mortgages, but it was observed that a simple money decree companyld be passed against them provided the claim was otherwise legally enforceable.
The three documents executed by the companyrt were also held to be duly executed and duly registered so as to be binding on defendants 1, 4 and In regard to defendants 2 and 3, the High Court felt that even a money decree companyld number be passed against them and the suit against them must fail in its entirety.
This Act which came into force on April 1, 1935 was enacted with the object of making better provision for the regulation and companytrol of the transactions of moneylending so as to secure protection to ignorant debtors against the evil of fraud and extortion on the part of unscrupulous moneylenders without unduly interfering with freedom of private companytract.
It further observed that though the transaction in question related to property at Chanda and payment was also made at Chanda, the amount was paid from the Wani shop where the accounts were maintained.
80,000 by way of interest, the total amount being Rs.
It was framed broadly on the lines of the Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act No.
The High Court further added that it was number the defendants case that the plaintiff had been carrying on money lending business in Chanda District after 1950 or in 1959 or even in April, 1960 when the suit was decided.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua J. This is an appeal with certificate under Art.
5 was also held to be bound by the three mortgages dated September 12, 1947.
Could a personal decree for payment of money be passed against defendants 2 and 3 ?
1 of 1939 but it embodied, in addition, the principle of Damdupet so that the creditors were number encouraged to postpone unconscionable enforcement of their claims.
1,60,000 against the appellants.
It is directed against the judgment and decree of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench dated February 7, 1966 allowing the plaintiffs appeal in part against the dismissal of his suit by the trial companyrt, and granting him a decree for Rs.
5 after he attained majority, respondent No.
The other two defendants, Rajeshwar and Narhari, were also the sons of Gajanan the dismissal of the suit against them was upheld by the High Court.
