TMI Blog1908 (4) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whom was then a minor. The subject-matter of the mortgage was land and houses at Meerut. At the time of the mortgage Partab was indebted to several persons, partly on mortgages and partly on other securities, the principal creditors being one Manna Lal, the heirs of one Shibban Lal, and one Kishan Sahai, and it is clear that at that time Partab was in money difficulties. 3. The mortgage in controversy purports to be in favour of a lady named Nawal Kunwar, for ₹ 10,000. Nawal Kunwar was at that time residing in Partab's house, and she was the sister of his son-in-law. 4. The transaction of January 10, 1889, as it appears on the face of the papers, consisted of two parts. First, there was the mortgage now disputed, exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The plaintiff's case at the trial was that the mortgage to her was a perfectly genuine mortgage, and that she paid the greater part of the consideration (the precise amount is immaterial here) partly out of her own moneys and partly by means of the ₹ 5000 borrowed by her from Munna Lal under the sub-mortgage of the same date. The case on the other side was that the mortgage to Nawal Kunwar was a fictitious transaction, and that the only real transaction on that occasion was a borrowing by Partab of ₹ 5000 from Munna Lal, the name of the lady being introduced purely benami. 9. The Subordinate Judge found for the defendants, holding the alleged mortgage to her to be benami. On appeal the High Court differed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaintiff, though a woman residing in Partab's house, was not, in the ordinary sense of the term, a dependent member of his family. She was a person of some independent means, was in the habit of lending money, and lent it to Partab himself not on this occasion only. On the other hand, Partab was in embarrassed circumstances. Only five days after the mortgage in question he was pressed for payment of Government revenue, and had to borrow ₹ 300 from the plaintiff to pay it. Partab's motive in the disputed transaction must have been to relieve his difficulties, but if regarded as a benami transaction, the mortgage, which was for considerably less than the value of the property, would have afforded no present protection against c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
