5,500 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent.
The subsequent events narrated by the plaintiff relate to the registration of the document and we do number companysider them to be material for our present purpose.
A number of pleas were taken by the companytesting defend ant in answer to the plaintiffs claim, most of which are number relevant for our present purpose.
It was the plaintiffs desire that the final document should be scribed by Harbhajan Lal but as the Raja wanted to oblige Jawala Prasad Patwari, who was the Patwari of Basti proper, the deed was faired out and scribed by Jawala Prasad patwari.
2,000, which was represented by items 3 and 4 of the companysideration clause in the document.
dated the 22nd April, 1943.
According to the plaintiff, the document was executed and attested at one and the same sitting in the Kot or palace of the Raja the terms had been settled beforehand between Bhikhi Ram and the mortgagor and on the 8th of November 1926 the plaintiff himself, and number his father, went to the Rajas palace at about 10 or 11 A.M. in the morning to get the document executed.
Against this decision, the defendant took an appeal to the High Court of Allahabad which was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of Verma and York JJ.
They found Jawala Prasad Patwari already with the Raja when they reached the Kot.
The third and the last material defence related to a claim for relief under the United Provinces Agriculturists Relief Act.
It is against this judgment that the plaintiff has companye up on appeal to this companyrt, and the main companytention raised by the learned Attorney General, who appeared in support of the appeal, is that in arriving at its decision on the question of attestation, the High Court approached the matter from a wrong standpoint altogether and on the materi als in the record it had numberjustification for reversing the findings of the trial companyrt on that point.
L. Banerjee H. J. Urnrigal, with him , for the respondents.
per annum up to the date of the suit.
5,500 with interest at certain rates as are sanctioned by the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act and agreeably to the provisions of that Act the decretal dues were directed to be paid in a number of instalments.
The result was that he made a preliminary decree for sale in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of the principal sum of Rs.
The draft was prepared by Buddhu Lal at the suggestion of the Raja.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial Judge held in favour of the defendant on the last point mentioned above and negatived his other pleas.
Appeal from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court Verma and Yorke JJ.
The mortgagor and the mortgagee were both dead at the time when the suit was instituted, and the plaintiff in the action was Ramdeo Sahu, the son and heir of the mortgagee, while the principal defendant was the eldest son of the mortgagor who succeeded to the Basti estate under the rule of primogeniture.
After the Raja had put his signature on the document in the presence of Harbhajan Lal and Tewari, both the latter signed the document in the presence of the Raja.
As against this, there is a companypletely different version given by the plaintiff himself and his witness Buddhu Lal.
He was accompanied by three persons to wit Harbhajan Lal, the deed writer of his father, Buddhu Lal, an old servant of the family, and Jawala Prasad Tewari who was also well known to the plaintiff and was taken to bear witness to the deed.
LXX of 1949.
The judgment of the Court was deliv ered by.
MLKHERJEA J. This is an appeal against a judjment and decree of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated April 22, 1943, which reversed on appeal those of the Civil Judge of Basti dated 6th of November 1939.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India Sri Narain And ley, with him , for the appellant.
The loan carried interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and there was a stipula tion to pay the mortgage money within one year from the date of the bond.
The suit, out of which the appeal arises, was companymenced by the plaintiff, whose successor the present appellant is, to recover a sum of Rs.
It was stated in the plaint that absolutely numberhing was paid by the mortgagor or his succes sor towards the mortgage dues and the plaintiff claimed the principal amount of Rs.
