Khuda Buksh Vs. Shiv Dutt and ors.

mortgage - neither names of mortgagees nor of mortgagors known--held, mortgage not proved.;neither the names of the mortgagees are known with any definiteness nor the names of the mortgagors, nor any other details pertaining to the mortgage pleaded by the plaintiff are ascertainable from the evidence on the record.;the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the mortgage. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - his statement has been discussed in detail by the courts below and i am in perfect agreement with the view taken by them that his evidence is wholly insufficient for proving the alleged mortgage. 5. the finding of fact arrived by the courts below that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the mortgage set up by them appears to be quite in order and does not call for interference......by the plaintiffs in the 'patta proceedings' (ex. a. 2) the plaintiffs stated that the house in dispute had been mortgaged with the defendants for a sum of rs. 100/. the only evidence regarding the alleged mortgage produced by the plaintiffs consists of the statement of the plaintiff khudabux himself. he has also no direct knowledge about the alleged mortgage as he states to have been born after the mortgage pleaded by him he states that he came to know about the factual of mortgage from a document called 'pol-ka khat' read out to him by the defendant shambhu dutt. however, he admits that that document did not contain the names of the mortgagees. thus the whole edifice of the plaintiffs' case falls to the grouod. in his statement dated 26-8-1944 (ex a-1) in the escheat proceedings knudabux stated that he could not say who were the mortgagees and when was the mortgage effected. similarly in the objections filed by him in the course of escheat proceedings with respect to the house in question he did not give any details regarding the alleged mortgage. his statement has been discussed in detail by the courts below and i am in perfect agreement with the view taken by them that his evidence is wholly insufficient for proving the alleged mortgage. neither the names of the mortgagees are known with any definiteness nor the names of the mortgagors, nor any other details pertaining to the mortgage pleaded by the plaintiff are ascertainable from the evidence on the record.5. the finding of fact arrived by the courts below that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the mortgage set up by them appears to be quite in order and does not call for interference.6. the result is that i do not see any force in this appeal, and hereby dismiss it with costs.