Skip to content


Babu Ram and anr. Vs. Mahadeo Ram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All127
AppellantBabu Ram and anr.
RespondentMahadeo Ram and anr.
Excerpt:
- - 1. we are satisfied that this appeal must succeed......to challenge the transaction even though he was not born in 1882, on the ground of want of legal necessity. the learned judge has treated the mortgage-debt due under the deed of 1882 as an antecedent debt, but, a renewal of the original transaction cannot be brought within the definition of an antecedent debt as contained in the fourth paragraph of the final summary of the existing law in regard to these matters contained in the judgment of their lordships of the privy council in the recent decision of brij narain v. mangla prasad rai a.i.r. 1924 p.c. 50. so far from being independent it is inevitably involved in the transaction which forms the subject-matter of the suit.2. at the time when the learned judge delivered his judgment this pronouncement of the state of the law upon.....
Judgment:

1. We are satisfied that this appeal must succeed. The point appears to be in a sense new, that is to say, our attention has not been called to any previous decision. It is admitted that the claim of the plaintiff is based upon a mortgage-bond of 1910 which was a mere renewal of a previous mortgage-bond of 1882 in respect of which a thousand rupees liability had accrued in 1910. The defendant is a grandson of the mortgagor and according to the settled law is entitled to challenge the transaction even though he was not born in 1882, on the ground of want of legal necessity. The learned Judge has treated the mortgage-debt due under the deed of 1882 as an antecedent debt, but, a renewal of the original transaction cannot be brought within the definition of an antecedent debt as contained in the fourth paragraph of the final summary of the existing law in regard to these matters contained in the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the recent decision of Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad Rai A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 50. So far from being independent it is inevitably involved in the transaction which forms the subject-matter of the suit.

2. At the time when the learned Judge delivered his judgment this pronouncement of the state of the law upon the subject had not been made by the Privy Council, but we have to follow it and we, therefore, have to hold that legal necessity for this debt, so as to charge the appellant, has not been established. There would be nothing in such a case to prevent the Court enquiring into the legal necessity in 1882 if there were any evidence upon the point, but to remit this case for that purpose would be idle.

3. The appellant has acted very properly and laudably in going outside his legal obligations, and recognizing the pious and moral obligation upon him to discharge this debt and he has deliberately abstained from appealing against more than the amount of the interest, that is to say, he accepted a legal liability to pay the respondent Rs. 1,000. He asks for six months' time for this purpose. We think that is a reasonable request. We allow the appeal and reduce the amount of the decree to Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff must have his proportionate costs of the proceedings in the Courts below. The appellant must have his costs of this appeal including costs on the higher scale if any, and the appellant must be allowed six months for payment. In form the decree will be for payment of Rs. 1,000 within six months from to-day.


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