TMI Blog1920 (8) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 and the due date was 7th June 1905. He Bled a suit on the 7th November 1906 and obtained the mortgage decree on the 8th March 1907. He took out execution and purchased the property on the 11th May 1909 and obtained formal delivery of possession on the 10th September 1910 when he was resisted by defendant No. 5 on the allegation that the property in suit had been sold to him by a sale-deed executed on the 11th August 1906 though this document was not registered until the 22nd November 1906; hence the plaintiff filed the present suit on the 3rd March 1913 for ejectment of defendant No. 5 and for recovery of possession and mesne profits as stated above. Both the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have given a decree for possession wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty, C. must be given an opportunity of redeeming B., but if he fails to redeem, B. will have a decree for possession of the property and not for sale of the property. The reason why he gets a decree for possession of the property is that at the date of the suit he was entitled to possession of the property. These are exactly the facts of the present case. In the present case, the District Judge directed that defendant No. 5 should pay the mortgage money with costs and interest within six months from the date of the decree and, on failure to do so, the plaintiff was to get possession of the disputed properties from the defendant. It is, however, urged by the learned Vakil appearing on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff was, at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1th August 1906, immediately after the registration of the document on the 22nd November 1906. That the ownership will be deemed to be vested in the vendee from the 11th August 1906 after the registration on the 22nd November cannot be questioned, but, at the same time, it is obvious that on the 7th November 1906 when the suit of the plaintiff was filed the ownership had not legally vested in defendant No. 5, If the sale deed of defendant No. 5 had been registered on the 11th August 1906, the ownership of the property would have vested in him on that date, and the plaintiff's case, on the authority of Balli Singh v. Bindeswari Tewari 35 Ind. Cas. 532 : 1 P.L.J. 133 : 2 P.L.W.432, could not have succeeded. That is the important fact whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
