One was that the Court was number companypetent to pass a decree creating a charge on the property in view of the fact that the property was held by the appellant as occupancy tenant.
In other respects, the decree of the trial companyrt was companyfirmed.
Deokabai, the respondent, filed the suit from which the appeal arises, on the basis that the appellant defaulted to pay the full purchase money of the property and that she was entilted to the same with interest.
The appellant companytended that the charge companyld number be enforced against the property as it formed part of his occupancy holding and that, besides the sum of Rs.
3,100/ he had made other payments totalling Rs.
This suit was companypromised and Deokabai was appointed receiver of the estate of Deojibhai with a direction by the Court to realise his assets and to pay a certain amount to Manibai.
No part of companysideration was paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed.
In a will executed by the executor of the annuity bond, it was provided that the annuity was to be a charge on certain properties.
9,500/. The trial companyrt found that numberdecree companyld be passed for enforcing the charge against the property as it was held in occupancy right by the appellant, but the companyrt gave a personal decree against the appellant for Rs.
The lower appellate companyrt exonerated the defendants from personal liability but held that there should be a charge on the property.
Manibai filed a suit in 1956 in the Bombay City Civil Court against Deojiabai, the respondent, claiming a share in the property left by her father in law, Deokabhai.
After the execution of the sale deed, the appellant was put into possession of the property and he paid Rs.
21, 375/. The appellant appealed against the decree to the High Court.
This companytention was negatived by the High Court on the ground that the prohibition to pass a. decree for sale or for closure of any right of an occupancy tenant in his holding was number in existence in 1952 when the suit was filed.
As the annuity allowance fell in arrears, the plaintiff brought a suit to enforce it praying for a charge.
Deojibhai died in 1955 leaving his widow, the respondent, and a son who died subsequently leaving his widow Manibai.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit but did company grant a charge.
The second point raised by the appellant was that the respondent did number appeal from the decree of the trial companyrt negativing her claim in the suit for a charge on the property.
Two points were taken on behalf of the appellant.
In Rodhika Mohan v. Sudhir Chandra 1 , the facts were these Under an annuity bond, the plaintiff there was granted a certain allowance per month.
It is against this decree that the present appeal, by certificate, has been filed.
The appellant promised to pay the amount by 21.5.1951 and companyenanted that in case of number payment, the amount due would be charge upon the property sold.
K. Mathew, J. One Deojibhai executed a sale deed on 30.12.1950 in respect of the property in question in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.
12,000/ .
The Court found that the respondent was entitled to enforce the charge on the property and granted a decree on that basis, but negatived the claim of the respondent for a personal decree against the appellant on the ground of limitation.
