Skip to content


Sachitananda Mohapatra Vs. Baloram GoraIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR24Cal644
AppellantSachitananda Mohapatra
RespondentBaloram GoraIn and ors.
Excerpt:
right of suit - benamidar--suit for foreclosure of mortgage--beneficial owner--parties--transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 85. - .....was that, although the mortgage bond was executed in the name of the plaintiff, the money was the money of bissonath misser, the grandfather of the plaintiff. they further said that baloram gorain, who executed the mortgage, had not received the full amount for which the mortgage was executed. both the lower courts have held that bissonath misser was the beneficial owner, and not the plaintiff in whose name the mortgage is said to have been executed.2. in a case, very similar to this, the same point was brought for decision to this court; and it was decided that the contract could be enforced by the parties who had entered into it, and that the suit should not be dismissed because the beneficial owner was not added as a party.3. whether baloram gorain got the money from bissonath misser.....
Judgment:

O'Kinealy and Hill, JJ.

1. This is a suit for foreclosure and for possession of the land mortgaged. The answer of the defendants was that, although the mortgage bond was executed in the name of the plaintiff, the money was the money of Bissonath Misser, the grandfather of the plaintiff. They further said that Baloram Gorain, who executed the mortgage, had not received the full amount for which the mortgage was executed. Both the lower Courts have held that Bissonath Misser was the beneficial owner, and not the plaintiff in whose name the mortgage is said to have been executed.

2. In a case, very similar to this, the same point was brought for decision to this Court; and it was decided that the contract could be enforced by the parties who had entered into it, and that the suit should not be dismissed because the beneficial owner was not added as a party.

3. Whether Baloram Gorain got the money from Bissonath Misser or not, the transfer of the mortgaged property was by the deed made to the plaintiff. And as the contract was made for good consideration, we think that the defendants should not be allowed to turn round and say that the terms of that document are all incorrect, and the person from whom the money was received, but to whom the document conveys no interest, must be brought in.

4. We, therefore, set aside the decrees of the lower Courts, and remand the case for trial on its merits. Costs to abide the result.


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