Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian boilers amendment act 2007 section 10 amendment of section 9 Sorted by: old Court: allahabad Year: 1932 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.403 seconds)

May 25 1932 (PC)

Tota Ram and ors. Vs. Ram Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-25-1932

Reported in : AIR1932All489

Mukerji, J.1. This case has been referred to a Full Bench for a decision of the following point of law, namely:Where a third mortgagee professes to keep in his hand a part of the mortgage money in order to pay off the first and second mortgages and pays of only the first mortgage, whether in a suit by the second mortgagee to enforce his mortgage it is open to the third mortgagee to insist on his being treated as a first mortgagee whose mortgage must be paid of before the plaintiff brings the mortgaged property to sale.2. The facts of the case are stated in the referring judgment and briefly are as follows:One Ram Chandra was the owner of a certain property. He mortgaged the same for a sum of Rs. 200 to one Paras Ram on 19th October 1915. The next year on 16th October 1916, he made a simple mortgage of the same property in favour of one Ram Lal and one Ganga Sahai, son of Tika Ram. The second mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 400 and' Ram Lal and Ganga Sahai kept a portion of the mortgage m...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 21 1932 (PC)

Lachman Singh and ors. Vs. Surendra Bahadur Singha and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jun-21-1932

Reported in : AIR1932All527

Mukerji, J.1. His Lordship after quoting the points referred proceeded.2. The first point as framed above is. meant to decide whether, when a plaintiff sues on a mortgage deed and the mortgage deed not being admitted by the defendant or defendants, he has formally to prove it, it is necessary for him to give evidence of the fact that the deed had been attested by two witnesses; or whether it would be enough for him to comply with the provisions of Sections 68 to 71, Evidence Act. In other words, when. it is not specifically in dispute whether there were two or more attesting witnesses to the deed or less than two, whether it is enough for a party seeking to prove the document to call a marginal witness to prove the signature of the executant and the witness's own signature on the margin, the deed itself bearing on the face of it the attestation of more than one attesting witness. Again, in other words, the question is whether in the three cases decided in this Court : Ram Dei v. Munne ...

Tag this Judgment!


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