| Citation | (1856) 6 MIA 393 |
| Date of Judgment | 8th July, 1856 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Case Type | |
| Application | Hunoomanpersuad Pandey |
| Respondent | Mussumat Babooee Munraj Koonweree |
| Bench | Knight Bruce, Edward Ryan & John Patteson |
| Referred | 393 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
A certain mortgage executed by a widow in her character of the guardian of her infant son was challenged by the son on becoming major on the ground that it is inalienable by the act of the guardian, and so he is not liable for it and the said mortgage was made for the payment of arrears of revenue due to the government, thus it was for the benefit of the minor’s estate to prevent a sequestration & probable confiscation due to non- payment of government revenue.
ISSUES
- Whether Koonweree was a competent party to execute the mortgage bond under Hindu law.
- Whether the mortgage bond was invalid and inefficacious.
- Whether the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of any prior mortgages paid off by him affecting the property.
ARGUMENTS
- That the aforesaid loan was taken without the knowledge of Ranee has not been proved.
- That the bonds and mortgage deed executed at that time were in acknowledge of Ranee.
- The defendant (HP Pandey) has been in possession of the land, since the settlement, and that Ranee Degumber Koonweree and Lal Inderdowun Singh (since deceased), remained silent for such a long period, it is clearly inferred that the Defendant (HP Pandey) and his witnesses are true.
- That at the time of the transaction, the family of Ranee was in need of money, if the loan was not taken at that time, then the property of Ranee was liable to be seized in the recovery of government dues.
- That no objection was made by the Ranee at the time of mortgaging lands.
JUDGEMENT
The appellate court reversed the decision of the lower civil court and decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff. When an appeal reached the Privy Council, it held that the mortgage was, in fact, executed but the mortgage took the mortgage from a limited owner, so the burden of proof of necessity lay upon him. In their Lordship’s opinion, the case of mortgage for something had been made out prima facie.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Raunak of Vikramajit Singh Sanatan Dharma College, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
