Patna High Court
Pande Satdeo Narain vs Ramayan Tewari on 26 June, 1919
Equivalent citations: 52IND. CAS.1002, AIR 1919 PATNA 494
JUDGMENT Coutts, J.
1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer. A Hindu widow mortgaged two properties. A suit was brought by the mortgagee who obtained a decree and in execution purchased the mortgaged properties. We are in this case concerned with only one of these properties, which was purchased for Rs. 826, After the auction sale the decree-holder auction-purchaser sold this property to one Baldeo Sahai, who in his turn mortgaged it to Sri Kishun Sahu, Sitaram Sahu and Durga Prasad (defendants-respondents Nos. 3,4 and 5). The present suit was then instituted by the presumptive reversioners for possession of the property and also for a declaration that the mortgage by the widow and all subsequent transactions were invalid. The prayer for possession has been disallowed in the Court of first instance, the only relief granted being a declaration that the mortgage by the widow was not binding on the plaintiffs. Against this decree the ' plaintiffs have appealed and a cross-objection has been filed by the defendants-respondents Nos. 3,4 and 5 in regard to the declaration. It is with the Court-fee to be paid on the cross-objection that we are concerned, and the point for consideration is whether the value of the cross-objection should be the value of the mortgage in regard to which the declaration was obtained, or whether it should be the value of the cross-objectors' mortgage which was for a sum very much greater than the mortgage by the widow. It is true that if the declaration is set aside, the cross-objectors may be benefited to a much greater extent than the value of the declaration, but this is not a matter with which we are concerned. All that is asked for is that the declaration in regard to the widow's mortgage should be set aside and the value of this mortgage, in my opinion, is the proper value of the cross-objection.