Skip to content


Dirgaj Singh and ors. Vs. Debi Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All499
AppellantDirgaj Singh and ors.
RespondentDebi Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
conditional sale - mortgage--foreclosure--regulation xviii of 1806, section 8. - .....3 w.r. 230, per phear, j., so 6 w.r. 230 that the term mortgagor's 'legal representative' used in the regulation (xvii of 1806) was intended to apply to all or any persons who at the date of the notice possess a title to the equity of redemption whether absolute or defeasible under the mortgage. the respondents were as mortgagees entitled to notice, and the foreclosure proceedings as against them are invalid. they were entitled to have the opportunity of coming in to redeem the mortgage held by the appellants so as to preserve their own security, and the issue of notice to them was indispensable to bar them by foreclosure. the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

4. The facts found by the Court below are no longer disputed, and we accept the findings. We entirely concur in the more recent rulings see 3 W.R. 230, per Phear, J., so 6 W.R. 230 that the term mortgagor's 'legal representative' used in the Regulation (XVII of 1806) was intended to apply to all or any persons who at the date of the notice possess a title to the equity of redemption whether absolute or defeasible under the mortgage. The respondents were as mortgagees entitled to notice, and the foreclosure proceedings as against them are invalid. They were entitled to have the opportunity of coming in to redeem the mortgage held by the appellants so as to preserve their own security, and the issue of notice to them was indispensable to bar them by foreclosure. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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