9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (11) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he preliminary decree disallowed interest to the appellants from September 14, 1936 to March 13, 1950, on the mortgage of ₹ 25,000. The appellants preferred Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1953 against the said decree in so far as it disallowed the said interest to the Judicial Commissioner, Aimer, and the respondents filed cross-objections against that part of the decree awarding costs against them. On August 25, 1954. both the appeal filed by the appellants and the cross-objections filed by the respondents were dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer. Against the decree of the Judicial Commissioner dismissing Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1953. the appellants, by special leave, preferred an appeal to this Court. On December 16, 1960, this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y would not be entitled to an amount higher than that claimed in the plaint. Having regard to the directions given by the High Court, he held that the appellants were liable to furnish accounts of the receipts of the mortgaged properties from August 10, 1950, the date of the filing of the suit, till they handed over possession of the mortgaged properties to the respondents. He further held that the appellants would be entitled only to interest on the principal amount of ₹ 30,000 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till August 17, 1953, and made it conditional on their furnishing the said account of the receipts of the usufruct of the mortgaged properties. Pursuant to that order a preliminary-decree was made c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee so as to bring it in conformity with the judgment. But the fallacy of the argument lies in the fact that the fresh preliminary decree made by the Senior Civil Judge was not the decree of this Court. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court and those given by the High Court, the learned Civil Judge heard fresh arguments and made a considered judgment. The decree passed, it cannot be disputed, was in terms of the judgment. That judgment had become final as the appellants did not prefer an appeal against the same, but instead filed an application for amendment of the decree. The High Court was therefore, right in holding that the fresh preliminary decree was in conformity with the judgment of the Civil Judge and, therefore, there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
