9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the mortgage instrument due to improper attestation and registration. 2. Consideration of the transaction, specifically the validity of items 3 and 4 amounting to Rs. 2,000. 3. Relief under the United Provinces Agriculturists' Relief Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Mortgage Instrument: The primary contention was that the mortgage document was not properly attested or validly registered, making it ineffective as a mortgage instrument in law. The trial Judge accepted the plaintiff's version that the document was properly attested, with the signatures of the mortgagor and attesting witnesses being in the same ink, suggesting simultaneous signing. The High Court, however, reversed this finding, stating that the document was not attested in the manner required by law, relying heavily on the testimony of Harbhajan Lal, who claimed the signatures were not made in the presence of the mortgagor. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's approach, emphasizing that the trial Judge's findings, based on oral evidence and witness demeanor, should not be easily overturned by an appellate court. The Supreme Court found the trial Judge's conclusion on attestation to be consistent with the circumstances and probabilities of the case, reinstating the trial court's decision on this point. 2. Consideration of the Transaction: The defendant argued that there was no consideration for the transaction, at least to the extent of Rs. 2,000, represented by items 3 and 4 in the consideration clause of the document. The trial Judge did not find merit in this argument and held in favor of the plaintiff, granting a preliminary decree for the recovery of the principal sum with interest. The High Court did not address this issue as it dismissed the suit solely on the ground of improper attestation. Consequently, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court to consider and decide on this issue. 3. Relief under the United Provinces Agriculturists' Relief Act: The trial Judge granted relief under the United Provinces Agriculturists' Relief Act, allowing the decretal dues to be paid in installments as per the provisions of the Act. This was one of the points the defendant had raised in his defense. The High Court did not address this issue due to its dismissal of the suit on the attestation ground. The Supreme Court's remand means the High Court will need to revisit this issue as well. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and remanding the case back to the High Court to address the unresolved issues, specifically the consideration of the transaction and the relief under the United Provinces Agriculturists' Relief Act. The plaintiff was awarded costs for the hearing and the High Court proceedings against defendant No. 1.
|
