Skip to content


Parashram Balaji Deshmukh and Another Vs. Asaram and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPrivy Council
Decided On
Case NumberPrivy Council Appeal No. 38 of 1934 (From Nagpur)
Judge
AppellantParashram Balaji Deshmukh and Another
RespondentAsaram and Others
Advocates:A.M. Dunne and Parikh, for Appellants; S. Hyam, for Respondents. Solicitors for Appellants, T.L. Wilson and Co., Solicitors for Respondents, Douglas Grant and Dold.
Cases Referred

(1) Narayan v. Mahadeo, 1928 Nag 41=104 IC 843=23 NLR 174.

Excerpt:
c.p. tenancy act (11 of 1898) - section 46(3) and section 46(5) - .....from the mortgagors by defendants 2-4 in 1925. these defendants impeach the registration of the mortgage deed upon a ground, which as set out in para. 6 of their written statement, is in the following terms: . . . that the registration of the mortgage deed covering as it did the mango trees, jambhul trees, babul trees and all other kinds of trees situate in occupancy fields nos. 195, 106 and 207 of kelod, is void as being in contravention of s. 46, cl. (5), tenancy act, 1898. the mortgage deed is thus not duly registered and being as good as not registered, cannot operate as a mortgage. on the issue, which was founded upon this plea, the trial judge expressed his opinion in favour of the plaintiffs, but, on appeal by the purchasers, his judgment was reversed by the court of the.....
Judgment:

SIR SHADI LAL:

The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before their Lordships, seek to enforce a mortgage, which was executed on 7th April 1914, and registered on 8th April 1914. The mortgaged property consisted of six items, two of which were purchased from the mortgagors by defendants 2-4 in 1925. These defendants impeach the registration of the mortgage deed upon a ground, which as set out in para. 6 of their written statement, is in the following terms:

. . . that the registration of the mortgage deed covering as it did the mango trees, Jambhul trees, Babul trees and all other kinds of trees situate in occupancy fields Nos. 195, 106 and 207 of Kelod, is void as being in contravention of S. 46, Cl. (5), Tenancy Act, 1898. The mortgage deed is thus not duly registered and being as good as not registered, cannot operate as a mortgage.

On the issue, which was founded upon this plea, the trial Judge expressed his opinion in favour of the plaintiffs, but, on appeal by the purchasers, his judgment was reversed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner at Nagpur, who "find it impossible to hold that the mortgage is a valid mortgage or that it was validly registered." They accordingly accepted the appeal, and dismissed the su


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