Skip to content


Kisandas Manekchand Vs. Ramchandra Murar Patil - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 205 of 1910
Judge
Reported in(1911)13BOMLR1009; 12Ind.Cas.589
AppellantKisandas Manekchand
RespondentRamchandra Murar Patil
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section. 257a--decree--satisfaction of decree--mortgage-deed--sanction of court--dekkhan agriculturists' relief act {xv11 of 1879), sections 12, 13--taking of accounts. ;in the case of a mortgage passed in satisfaction of a decretal debt with the sanction of the court under section 257a of the civil procedure code of 1882, the court can, under the provisions of the dekkhan agriculturists' belief act, 1879, go into the question whether the principal sum shown in the deed consisted partly of interest. - - the sanction of the court under section 257 a of the old code of civil procedure was necessary in order to make the agreement, which would otherwise have been void, a good and binding contract......of certain decretal debts, with the sanction of the court under section 257 a of the old code of civil procedure (act xlv of 1882). the defendants have raised only one point before us, namely, that the mortgage bond was sanctioned by the court under section 257 a of the old code of civil procedure, and that therefore, the lower court was debarred from going into the question whether the principal sum shown in the mortgage bond consisted partly of interest as required by the provisions of the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act. we have no doubt that the lower court had jurisdiction to go into that question. the sanction of the court under section 257 a of the old code of civil procedure was necessary in order to make the agreement, which would otherwise have been void, a good and.....
Judgment:

Hayward, J.

1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem their property from a mortgage, passed in satisfaction of certain decretal debts, with the sanction of the Court under Section 257 A of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act XLV of 1882). The defendants have raised only one point before us, namely, that the mortgage bond was sanctioned by the Court under Section 257 A of the old Code of Civil Procedure, and that therefore, the lower Court was debarred from going into the question whether the principal sum shown in the mortgage bond consisted partly of interest as required by the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. We have no doubt that the lower Court had jurisdiction to go into that question. The sanction of the Court under Section 257 A of the old Code of Civil Procedure was necessary in order to make the agreement, which would otherwise have been void, a good and binding contract. It does not appear that the section was intended to do anything more; and give any further and special force to the contract. It did not and could not, in our opinion, interfere with the jurisdiction to inquire whether the contract included interest in the principal sum conferred by the entirely separate and special Act, the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.

2. We must, therefore, confirm the decree of the lower Court and dismiss this appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //