9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the mortgage registration. 2. Jurisdiction of the Court which granted the mortgage decree. 3. Existence and description of the property mortgaged. 4. Allegations of fraud and fictitious entry in the mortgage deed. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Mortgage Registration The respondents contended that the mortgage dated 23rd September 1895 was not duly registered. The plaintiff's mortgage was presented for registration at the Calcutta Registry Office and registered by the Sub-Registrar. However, the property described as No. 25, Guru Das Street, Calcutta, was found to be non-existent and never owned by the mortgagor. The Court concluded that the registration was invalid due to the fictitious nature of the property description, which was likely inserted to give the appearance of jurisdiction. 2. Jurisdiction of the Court which Granted the Mortgage Decree The respondents also challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, which granted the mortgage decree on 28th July 1905. The Court found that the property purported to be in Calcutta did not exist, and all other properties listed in the mortgage were outside Calcutta. Therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the mortgage bond, rendering its decree invalid. 3. Existence and Description of the Property Mortgaged The plaintiff's claim was based on a mortgage that included a property described as No. 25, Guru Das Street, Calcutta. The defendants proved that this property did not exist and that the actual property within the described metes and bounds belonged to strangers. The Court noted that neither the plaintiff nor the mortgagor provided evidence to support the existence of the property or any mistake in its description. The Court concluded that the description was fictitious and intended to falsely establish jurisdiction and registration. 4. Allegations of Fraud and Fictitious Entry in the Mortgage Deed The Court considered the fictitious entry of No. 25, Guru Das Street, as a fraud on the Registration law. It was determined that the entry was intentionally made to obtain registration in Calcutta and to bring the deed within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court held that such fraudulent actions invalidated the registration and the jurisdiction of the Court. Conclusion The Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, affirming that the mortgage registration was invalid, the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant the mortgage decree, and the property description was fictitious. The Court advised that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
|
