Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dharajit and ors. Vs. Siria and ors.

Dharajit and ors. vs Siria and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 08, 1911
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/455396

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Hindu Law - Mortgage by father in lieu of antecedent debt--Onus of proof--Mortgagee not bound to prove nature of debt. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dharajit and ors.

Respondent

Siria and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
9Ind.Cas.484

Excerpt

hindu law - mortgage by father in lieu of antecedent debt--onus of proof--mortgagee not bound to prove nature of debt. - 1. the plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen sued to recover the amount alleged to be due to them on foot of a mortgage of the 25th of september 1896. this mortgage was executed by four brothers including jewa ram, who has since died. the defendants to the suit are the executants of the bond and the representatives of jewa ram. it is found by the courts below that the mortgage in question was executed to raise money to pay off prior debts of the ancestor of the executants. the court below gave a decree to the plaintiffs as against the three surviving brothers but exempted the representatives of jewa ram. the learned district judge in affirming the decision of the courts below observe that the plaintiffs had to prove that the debt to pay off which, the mortgage was executed was incurred by the ancestor as bona fide debt for a legal necessity.' in this statement of the law we are unable to concur with the learned district judge. all that the plaintiffs were bound to establish was that there was an antecedent debt of the ancestor existing at the date of the execution of the mortgage. this has been proved.2. the burden did not lie upon the plaintiffs of showing what the nature of that antecedent debt was, it not being suggested that this debt was contracted for immoral purposes or was otherwise illegal. there is no allegation here that the debt of the ancestor was contracted for any such purposes. under these circumstances we must allow the appeal, we modify the decree of the court below and decree the claim as against all the defendants, including defendants nos. 5-10, to be realised out of all the mortgaged property. the defendants must pay the costs in all courts. we extend the time for payment for six months from this date. in other respects we affirm the decision of the court below.

Full Judgment

1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen sued to recover the amount alleged to be due to them on foot of a mortgage of the 25th of September 1896. This mortgage was executed by four brothers including Jewa Ram, who has since died. The defendants to the suit are the executants of the bond and the representatives of Jewa Ram. It is found by the Courts below that the mortgage in question was executed to raise money to pay off prior debts of the ancestor of the executants. The Court below gave a decree to the plaintiffs as against the three surviving brothers but exempted the representatives of Jewa Ram. The learned District Judge in affirming the decision of the Courts below observe that the plaintiffs had to prove that the debt to pay off which, the mortgage was executed was incurred by the ancestor as bona fide debt for a legal necessity.' In this statement of the law we are unable to concur with the learned District Judge. All that the plaintiffs were bound to establish was that there was an antecedent debt of the ancestor existing at the date of the execution of the mortgage. This has been proved.

2. The burden did not lie upon the plaintiffs of showing what the nature of that antecedent debt was, it not being suggested that this debt was contracted for immoral purposes or was otherwise illegal. There is no allegation here that the debt of the ancestor was contracted for any such purposes. Under these circumstances we must allow the appeal, we modify the decree of the Court below and decree the claim as against all the defendants, including defendants Nos. 5-10, to be realised out of all the mortgaged property. The defendants must pay the costs in all Courts. We extend the time for payment for six months from this date. In other respects we affirm the decision of the Court below.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial