Skip to content


Hulasa Kuar and anr. Vs. Rahmani Bibi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All642
AppellantHulasa Kuar and anr.
RespondentRahmani Bibi and ors.
Excerpt:
redemption of mortgage - acknowledgment of the mmortgagor's title signed by mortgager's agent--act ix of (limitation act), schedule ii, article 148. - order1. it having been ruled by the privy council. (see lachmee buksh roy v. runjeet roy panday 13 b.l.r. 177) that signature by an agent is not sufficient to satisfy the analogous terms of act xiv of 1859, we must hold that the acknowledgment in this case is insufficient. of course we are now considering the acknowledgment required under act ix of 1871 and not under the present law, of which the terms are more equitable.2. the lower appellate court must determine whether this suit has been instituted within 60 years from the date on which the mortgage was made. it will try this issue and remit its finding to this court, when ten days will he allowed for objections.
Judgment:

ORDER

1. It having been ruled by the Privy Council. (see Lachmee Buksh Roy v. Runjeet Roy Panday 13 B.L.R. 177) that signature by an agent is not sufficient to satisfy the analogous terms of Act XIV of 1859, we must hold that the acknowledgment in this case is insufficient. Of course we are now considering the acknowledgment required under Act IX of 1871 and not under the present law, of which the terms are more equitable.

2. The lower Appellate Court must determine whether this suit has been instituted within 60 years from the date on which the mortgage was made. It will try this issue and remit its finding to this Court, when ten days will he allowed for objections.


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