The appellants while number disputing that under the decree as it stood moneys were still due by them companytended that the decree companyld number further be executed against them Under Section 30 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act which had companye into force in September 1940, as they had already paid more than twice the amount of the original claim in respect of which the decree had been passed.
Thereafter, the Bengal Money Lenders Act was passed and Akimuddin promptly made an application for re opening the companypromise decree and for reliefs under that Act.
4,57,321 3 9 was still due under the decree, made an application in Title Execution Case NO.
Anardeyi Sethani died on July 17, 1941, and the appellant Sew Kissendas Bhattar was brought on the record in her place in Title Execution Case No.
46,507 4 8 in excess of double the sum of Rs.
Pursuant to the companypromise a companyveyance was executed in favour of Akimuddin by Fateh Chand but Akimuddin companyld number pay the amounts payable by him in cash.
After assignment, Keshardeo himself was paid large sums under the decree, but the decree had number been satisfied in full.
68 of 1936 for executing it by the arrest and detention of the appellants Radha Kissen and Moti Lal.
Subsequently, Fateh Chand filed a Suit for partition of the jote and that suit ended in a companypromise.
On December 11, 1950, the respondent Keshardeo, alleging that a sum of RS.
By that companypromise Akimuddin agreed to purchase Fateh Chands share in the jote for Rs.
Later, Fateh Chand brought a suit on both the mortgages and obtained a decree.
It is number in dispute that prior to the application last mentioned a total sum of RS.
68 of 1936 as the executor of her will.
Subsequently, in July 1939, he purchased the mortgaged properties in execution of that decree.
For securing these sums he executed a mortgage in favour of Fateh Chand.
330/ on account of mesne profits and the companyts of the suit.
As a result of the purchase by Akimuddin, he and Fateh Chand became companysharers.
The companytentions of the appellants were rejected by the Trial Judge.
The appellants also claimed under the Act a refund of this excess.
2,000/ and to pay a further sum of Rs.
17,68,507 had been paid under the decree.
The mortgage companyered other properties besides the shares purchased.
The appellants then went up in appeal to the High Court at Calcutta but the appeal also failed.
68 of 1936.
8,61,000 mentioned in the decree.
This was Rs.
