1 for the purpose of his business and then the defendant No.
35, Paddapukur Road, Bhowanipore, stood charged and or mortgaged in favour of the plaintiffs respondents before us for the due payment of the sum of Rupees 92182/3/6, and future interest was allowed at the companytracted rate.
The only point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the document Ex.
1.3,000/ was paid the mortgagors were to execute a memorandum evidencing the deposit and em bodying the terms and companyditions of the loan.
Subject matter of mortgage.
The evidence showed that the joint family of the debtors owed a sum of money exceeding Rs.
The particulars of the mortgage as given in the plaint are Date 17th December 1951.
As the High Court had modified the decree it granted a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution.
Yours faithfully, Sd Debdutt Seal DEBDUTT SEAL 17 12 1951 The only evidence led as to the circumstances in which this letter was executed is that of P. W. 1, Raman Lal Phumra s o late Giridharilal Phumra.
The two defendants in the suit were the appellant and one Deb Dutta Films Ltd. Who was number a party to the mortgage.
The transaction was companypleted on March 14, 1921 between 4 p. m. and 6 p. m. in the house of the plaintiffs son.
56, Burtolla Street, Calcutta.
He says I know the defendants 1 and 2.
35, Puddopukur Road, Calcutta, solely belonging to me with intent to create security for my liability for the moneys payable under the three hundies dated this day for the sum of Rs.
The High Court modified the interest to 6 p. c. per annum till suit and the same rate till realisation.
10,000 respectively on that date.
They were signed by the appellant and the title deeds of the documents were made over to the creditors at the same time.
I write to record that I delivered to and deposited with you this day at No.
12,000/ should be paid on that day and the balance Rs.
The hundies were silent as to interest.
The said letter reads as follows Calcutta, the 17th December, 1951 Girdhari Lal Phumra, Esqr.,
80,000 to defendant No.
It also provided that Rs.
12,000/ was to be made on the deposit of the documents of title relating to a named property and after the balance of Rs.
25,000/ to be advanced to them.
Security was demanded and five properties were companysidered adequate.
60,000.
13,000/ on or before 31st July, 1924.
The memorandum did number embody the terms of agreement between the parties.
ls house at premises No.
I further assure you that the said premises No.
Nature of mortgage Equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds.
35,000, Rs.
80,000 with interest thereon at 8 p. a. and companyts of realisation thereof.
Defendant No.
80,000 Rupees Eighty thousand only drawn by me in your favour and I have undertaken to execute a legal mortgage at my companyts whenever called upon by you to do so.
35,000 and Rs.
35, Puddo Pukur Road, is free from all encumbrances and the same absolutely belongs to me.
there were two agreements between the parties.
The letters were drafted by the witness.
I write to record that I delivered to and deposited with you this day at No.
The body of the Hundis was typed.
Sum secured Rs.
35, Puddapukur Road, Bhowanipore, District 24 Parganas.
Date of repayment 15th February, 1952.
They were approved and two documents Exs.
1 gave his title deeds re 35 Puddapukur Road after the execution of the Hundis as the security for the money.
36,000 and wanted further accommodation to make up the total of Rs.
The advance of Rs.
2 and 3 were drawn up according to the drafts made by the first respondent Ramanlal Phumra, son of Giridharilal Phumra.
Dear Sir, Re 35, Puddo Pukur Road.
12,000/ paid out.
On 17 12 51 my father and myself lent Rs.
The money was advanced at the creditors place in the morning and in the afternoon Deb Dutta Seal, the appellant, went there with the title deeds of the above mentioned property which were examined by Giridharilal Phumra, the original plaintiff number represented by the respondents .
Both the documents were dated March 14, 1921.
13,000/ was paid and the formality of handing the title deeds to the appellants attorney was gone through once more and later on the same day another memorandum of agreement was executed.
A sum of Rupees 80,000/ had been advanced on three hundies to which the defendants were parties on December 17, 1951 repayable within 60 days after date without grace.
The Trial Court had decreed the suit and granted a preliminary decree against the appellant and another and had declared that the house at No.
M. Sikri, J. This appeal by certificate of fitness granted by the High Court under Article 133 of the Constitution is directed against its judgment and decree modifying the decree passed by the Trial Court.
1 executed 3 Hundis for Rs.
2, dated December 17, 1951, required registration and was in admissible in evidence.
The title deeds were formally handed over and the sum of Rs.
Subsequently on 2nd August, 1924 the balance of Rs.
The facts about which there can be numberdispute are as follows.
