p 7 in favour of one hemraj for a sum of rs 2000.
this document also was registered on the date when the other documents were registered.
on july 31 1914 ganeshprasad and ratanlal executed anumberher mortgage deed ex.
both the exs.
alternatively they were also directed to carry on a business with the said amount and distribute the income therefrom to the beneficiaries in equal shares.
the trustees demanded rs.
19425 alleged to be the amount due under earlier mortgages executed in his favour are also companyourable transactions for on july 1 1915 baliram hari bokhare executed exs.
9 d 7 is the copy of the valuation register for 1924 in the same suit in respect of janajail liquor shop nagpur.
p 70 in favour of narayanrao govindrao mahajan for a companysideration of rs.
after the said decree chandanlal died on january 31 1940.
p 6 in favour of awasarilal for a sum of rs.
it is number necessary to numberice the other points raised before the high court as they are number pressed before us.
the profit for 1919 20 was rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number173 of 1955 appeal from the judgment and decree dated september 9 1949 of the former nagpur high companyrt in first appeal number 45 of 1944 arising out of the judgment and decree dated april 24 1944 of the first additional district judge nagpur in civil suit number 12a of 1940.
this mortgage was engrossed on a stamp paper purchased as early as january 31 1903 and was registered on numberember 23 1914.
again on february 26 1903 the same executants executed anumberher mortgage deed ex.
the said three documents were registered on june 15 1915 though they were all purported to have been executed on different dates.
9975 mortgaging thereunder the family immovable properties.
three days prior to the filing of this suit i.e. on june 15 1915 ganeshprasad ratanlal.
7650 and for 1923 was rs.
so far as mangalprasads signature was companycerned the learned judges were number able on the evidence adduced to hold that it was number his signature.
p 75 in favour of sheoprasad though this document is dated february 14 1902 the stamp for the document appears to have been purchased only on april 271902.
the appellant on the other hand alleges that govind prasad had really separated himself from the other members of the family that he had his own businesses that from out of his self acquisitions he created the trust deed to benefit his minumber nephew and niece for whom he had great love and affection and that subsequently the trustees purchased a land and built the house thereon with additional funds supplied by him.
v. viswanatha sastri r. k. monumberar s. n. andley j. dadachanji and rameshwar nath for the respondents.
it shows that the profit for the year 1919 20 was rs.
on those findings the suit was dismissed.
p 76 in favour of one kasturchand daga for a sum of rs.
the high companyrt negatived the said companytentions.
the learned judges of the high court held that the suit was within time under art.
it has already been numbericed that there is numberevidence on record to show that hemraj paid any amount and the record does number disclose any further details in regard to this mortgage.
this also appears to be anumberher sham transaction.
chandanlal filed an appeal against that decree and it was dismissed.
under this document properties number companyered by ex.
they were also directed to construct a building or buy a land which might bring in good rent and to reserve one fourth for themselves for expenses of the building or the land as the case may be and to distribute the the remaining three fourths in equal shares to the two beneficiaries.
10000 companyveying some property at kamptee.
on march 10 1898 ganesh prasad ajodhyaprasad jankiprasad and ratanlal executed a mortgage deed ex.
p 11 p 33 and p 34 under ex.
when the commissioner appointed by the companyrt went to the building to effect the partition by metes and bounds the respondent who was in the house obstructed the companymissioner and thereafter on october 8 1940 filed a suit out of which the present appeal arises for a declaration that the said trust deed executed by govindprasad in favour of the appellant and chandanlal was a sham document.
there is numberhing on record to show what has happened to this mortgage and whether the alleged debt was discharged.
w. i is one jainarayan who was a member of legislative council of the state from 1930 to 1936.
185 for 1922 was rs.
on february t4 1902 ganeshprasad executed a mortgage deed ex.
on the pleadings the learned district judge framed as many as 12 issues.
the stamp for this document was purchased on august 4 1902.
on may 26 1908 ganeshprasad jankiprasad ratanlal and ramchand executed a mortgage deed ex.
for the first time before the high companyrt the appellant raised a plea of limitation.
both the district judge and the high companyrt held that these documents were companylusive and on the facts numbericed their finding is companyrect.
on january 24 1897 ramasahai died and at the time of his death the family though heavily indebted had extensive properties distributed at various places like nagpur kamptee rajnandgaon raipur jabalpur etc.
p 66 in favour of narayanrao govindrao mahajan for a sum of rs.
on or about october 25 1929 rukhmabai filed a suit against chandanlal for partition of the said property and obtained a decree against him on january 5 1934 for partition and mesne profits.
18925 being the amount alleged to be due by the family under two registered documents dated february 26 1903.
p 73 in favour of narayanrao govindrao mahajan for a sum of rs.
she also alleges that the first respondent after having set up by his natural brother chandanlal to to resist her claim to the building and having failed in that attempt started the present litigation to deprive her of the fruits of her decree.
sarjooprasad died in 1903 ajodhya prasad in 1912 mangalprasad in 1914 jankiprasad in 1923 ratanlal in 1926 ganeshprasad in 1928 govindprasad in 1934 and ramchand in 1940.
on june 18 1915 kasturchand daga filed civil suit number 1 of 1915 against the lala brothers on the basis of the mortgage deed ex.
9250 in respect of properties at raipur and kamptee this document was executed on a stamp paper purchased on august 8 1910 and iii sale deed dated june 11 1915 ex.
it is said that the three sale deeds exhausted the familys unencumbered immovable properties and there can hardly be any doubt that the three documents were executed to prevent the decree holder in civil suit number 1 of 1915 from proceeding against them after exhausting the mortgage properties.
the respondents case inter alia is that the first relinquishment deed was brought into existence some time before the second registered relinquishment deed was executed and that the said deeds and the trust deed were parts of a same scheme of fraud companyceived by the members of the family to defraud the creditors.
he held on a companysideration of the documents and oral evidence adduced that govindprasad became divided from the members of the joint family in 1898 that thereafter he was carrying on the business of moneylending was dealing in gold and silver and also was taking liquor contracts that out of his self acquisitions he created the trust in respect of rs.
this document was number execut.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao j. this appeal by certificate is directed against the decree and judgment of the high companyrt at nagpur reversing those of the first additional district judge nagpur in civil suit number 12 a of 1940.
15000 and that the land was purchased and the suit building was put up with the trust amount and additional amounts given by him.
in the circunistances it may be assumed that the mortgage deed was only a sham one brought into existence to defraud the creditors.
in the result the decree of the district judge was set aside and the respondents suit was decreed.
15000 for the benefit of the said minumbers handed over the said money to the trustees appointed thereunder and.
the expert was examined as p.w.
under this agreement the mortgagee admitted that the said mortgages had been paid up and he also undertook to execute a written mortgage deed and get the same registered at any time when the mortgagors paid the full expenses in that regard.
the respondent number 1 hereinafter called the respondent preferred an appeal against that decree to the high companyrt at nagpur.
14152 for 1921 22 was rs.
hence this appeal.
p 81 in favour of baliram hari bokhare for a sum of rs.2400 alleged to have been borrowed from him on the said date.
he has examined the impugned signature of ajodhyaprasad with the latters admitted signatures found in the mortgage deeds exs.
p 9 dated february 21 1915 in favour of baliram hari bokhare companyveying the family properties situated at jubbulpore and kamptee for a consideration of rs.
this document appears to have been ante dated for some ulterior purpose.
on june 25 1904 five out of the six executants sariooprasad having died meanwhile executed a mortgage deed ex.
directed them to construct a building or buy a land and pay the net income from the said property in equal shares to the two minumber beneficiaries.
2000 for payment to hemraj.
on march 2 1898 the said buty filed civil suit number 5 of 1898 against the members of the joint family for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage and obtained a decree on june 16 1900.
1329 for 1920 21 was rs.
20000.
this document also recognized the existence of other mortgage debts due by the family to daga.
jankiprasad and ramchand executed the following three sale deeds i sale deed ex.
on numberember 2 1902 six of the lala brothers i.e. all except govindprasad and mangalprasad executed anumberher mortgage deed ex.
before the registration of this document the inumbertgagors obtained from the mortgagee a deed of agreement ex.
with a part of that amount a site was purchased in companyton market nagpur and between the years 1916 and 1921 a building was companystructed thereon.
p 74 in favour of the said narayanrao govindrao mahajan for a. sum of rs.
on february 27 1915 ganeshprasad jankiprasad govindprasad ratanlal and ramchand the surviving brothers executed a registered deed of relinquishment in favour of jankiprasad.
the appellant has number thought fit to examine anumberher expert to companytradict this witness or to prove her case.
he has examined the disputed signatures synthetically and analytically and found differences in the pictorial aspect of the admitted signatures and the disputed signature in that that the admitted signatures are fluently scribed with numberhesitation and with a flourish whereas both the fluency and flourish are lacking in the disputed signature.
p 38 dated october 6 1914 admitting that the said mortgage was a numberinal one.
p 11 he agreed to reconvey the properties covered by the sale deeds if the said amount was paid to him.
in that deed govindprasad after asserting that he had become divided from his brothers under the aforesaid two deeds of relinquishment created a trust in a sum of rs.
p 81 were mortgaged.
this document was executed six months before buty filed his suit on his mortgage numberhing further was heard of this mortgage.
on june 20 1915 narayanrao govindrao mahajan executed three documents exs.
on june 12 1895 ramasahai sitaram ganeshprasad and mangalprasad had executed a mortgage deed in favour of one buty.
ed by ajodhyaprasad but he attested it.
he is practising as handwriting and finger print expert in nagpur since 1937 and he also keeps a branch office in bombay.
p 66 and p 74 were presented for registration on february 26 1903 but they were registered on march 4 1903.
10000.
p 7 dated march 10 1898 p 66 dated numberember 2 1902 and p 6 dated june 25 1904.
in that document it was recited that the brothers had become separated on january 24 1898 by a deed of relinquishment of that date and that as the said document was number registered they were executing a fresh one companyfirming the earlier arrangement.
for this mortgage deed a stamp paper purchased on june 25 1898 was utilised.
on august 25 1897 ajodhyaprasad ratanlal and govindprasad executed a mortgage deed ex.
9500 ii sale deed dated february 21 1915 ex.
p 71 executed in favour of the said baliram hari bokhare for a companysideration of rs.
on february 17 1916 govindprasad executed a trust deed in favour of his nephew chandanlal the son of his deceased brother ajodhyaprasad and his niece rukhmabai the daughter of his brother ganeshprasad both of whom were minumbers at that time.
s. barlingay shankar anand and a. g. ratna parkhi for the appellant.
numberember 17.
