84,000/ was reserved with the mortgagee for payment to Daulatram Narula the sum representing the principal and interest due on his three mortgages.
60,000/ .
From the rejection of this claim in the two suits Sham Sunders representatives preferred two appeals to the High Court and the learned judges allowed the appeal holding that it was number an essential companydition for claiming the right of subrogation that the creditor redeeming the mortgage should have entered into an express agreement to that effect.
1, Pusa Road was given as security.
1, Pusa Road in Block 34 with a bungalow thereon.
13 was sold by Mohinder to one Mukhamal Gokul Chand by deed dated April 28, 1944.
It ought to be mentioned that the companysideration for several of the mortgages referred to earlier was in part a payment in cash to the mortgagor and in part repayment in part satisfaction of previous mortgages but this circumstance number being of any relevance we are number setting out the details of the companysideration for the several mortgages.
9,000/ res pectively, also filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.
The appellant is one Brahm Parkash in whose favour Mohinder Singh executed a mortgage for Rs.
1, Pusa Road.
She impleaded as party defendants to the suit the several subsequent mortgagees.
28, 12 and 13 of 1948 respectively.
This companytention was raised both in the suit by Lajwanti as well as in Mukhamals suit.
Sham Sunder were also impleaded as defendants in this suit also.
10,000/ .
property and others on February 25, 1944 and March 14, 1944, the first for Rs.
Gopal Singh for R. S. Narula, for the appellant in C. A. No.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated May 19, 1955, of the Punjab High Court in Regular First Appeals Nos.
15,302/ and odd.
The property mortgaged was plot No.
Daultram Narula, the mortgagee under the deed dated January 21, 1944 obtained two further mortgages over the same.
84,000/ .
14 of Block No.
The amount due to Lajwanti was number paid and she accordingly brought a suit on June 14, 1945, in the Court of the Se nior Sub judge, Delhi for the recovery of her mortgage money which, after giving credit for the sums paid to her already by several subsequent mortgagees, came to Rs.
March 14.
Plot No.
Mohinder Singh owned as many as eight properties in Delhi and over one or other of these he created successively 24 mortgages between September 1943 and July 1944 and also executed a sale in respect of one item of these properties.
19 in Block No.
The facts relevant for the companysideration of this point are briefly as follows The prelliminary decree of the trial judge from which the appeal No.
Two days later on January 23, 1944 the appellant, jagdish Chand, lent a sum of Rs.
10,000/ was created over this and certain other properties we are, however number companycerned with these other properties in favour of one Lajwanti by Mohinder Singh by a deed dated October 19,1943.
The companytentions urged in these appeals arise out of companyflicts between the rights of some of these mortgagees inter se, between some of them and the purchaser of one of the properties.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1,25,000/ out of which Rs.
Brahm Parkash was the twentieth defendant in Lajwantis suit.
Mukhamals appeal to the High Court Appeal 28 of 1948 was filed out of time with a petition for companydonation of delay under s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and the learned judges companydoned the delay and entertained the appeal.
This appeal arises out of the suit by Lajwanti already referred to.
Civil Appeal 76 of 1961.
28 of 1948 was filed was dated April 28,1947.
76 of 1961 .
11,657/5/4.
76 and 77 of 1961.
9,500/ and the second for Rs.
Passing over certain intermediate transactions number material for the purposes of the present appeals, a mortgage was created in favour of one Daulatram Narula inter alia on this property on January 21, 1944 to secure a sum of Rs.
16,000/under which the property No.
Achhru Ram and Naunit.
A few days later on November 7, 1943 another mortgage was executed in her favour for Rs.
Bishan Narain and B. P. Maheshwari, for respondents Nos.
14 which on April 28, 1944, had been sold to Mukhamal.
Appeals 77 and 78 may first be companysidered, The facts necessary to appreciate the sole point raised by Mr. Achhru Ram, learned Counsel for the appellant Jagdish Chand are these The property company cerned in the two appeals is plot No.
As in Lajwantis suit, the several subsequent mortgagees including jagdish Chand, Daulatram and the legal representatives of Pt.
Mohinder Singh is number deceased and is number represented in these proceedings by his widow and son.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR J. These three appeals, which are before us on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Punjab, arise out of two suits for the recovery of amounts due on mortgages executed by one Mohinder Singh who was a companytractor in Delhi.
The legality and propriety of this order companydoning the delay is companyvassed before us by learned Counsel for the appellant.
It is from this decision of the High Court that these two appeals have been preferred.
including the appellant jagdish Chand as well as Daulatram and Sham Sunders legal representatives as he himself was dead by that date.
Lastly, and this is the mortgage which is of importance for the point raised in this appeal, on July 13, 1944, Mohinder Singh created in favour of Pandit Sham Sunder an usufructuary mortgage for Rs.
Lal, for appellant No.
15,000/ on May 2, 1944.
44 in Block 17 A with the superstructure on it and plot No.
77 and 78 of 1961 .
Just like Lajwanti another mortgagee one Mukhamal in whose favour two mortgages, one dated February 1, 1944 and another dated May 12, 1944 for Rs.
It is however unnecessary for the purpose of deciding these points to set out the details of every one of these several mortgages or their history.
10,000/ to Mohinder Singh and had a mortgage executed on No.
9 and 18 to 20 in C. A. No, 77 of 1961 .
I in C. A. Nos.
An application for the grant of certified companyies was made on October 16, 1947 and the companyies were ready for delivery on October 28, 1947.
It is companymon ground that on the date when the mortgage was registered Sham Sunder carried out his obligation and discharged the mortgages of Daulatram by paying him Rs.
10,000/ and Rs.
On this ground the right of the subrogation claimed by the legal representatives of Sham Sunder was rejected.
A mortgage for Rs.
