Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.15 seconds)Section 6 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 53 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Har Chandi Lal vs Sheoraj Singh on 18 December, 1916
9. The first question upon this clause is whether the plaintiff's charge on the Raja's allowance was intended to be released whether or not the mortgage was valid, that is whether he gave up his old security on the footing that; he was getting a new one, or taking a chance that he might not get a new one. In their Lordships' opinion, the intention of the plaintiff was entirely frustrated by the fact that the mortgage of July 6, 1899, turned out to be invalid and was set aside. While it is possible to put a case in which a mortgagee releases one security unconditionally1 with an intention to take the risk of a new security turning out to be invalid, there are no facts in this case pointing to so unusual a bargain. The result is that this contention as to the allowance fails. The case of Har Chandi Lal v. Sheoraj Singh (1916) L.R. 44 I.A. 60 : s.c. 19 Bom. L.R. 444 furnishes a complete answer to the suggestion that a beneficiary under the trust can claim the benefit of the mortgage of July 6, 1899, as a release of the hypothecation bonds so far as the allowance is concerned. The appellant's contention that because the plaintiff had received the amount that was due to him upon debts contracted prior to the deed of settlement and was not directed to refund it when the Raja's son elected to avoid the mortgage he can now claim that the mortgage has not been altogether set aside, is a contention which their Lordships reject. The appellant cannot single out a particular clause of the mortgage deed and claim to hold the plaintiff by its terms and in this way maintain that the release of the charge upon the allowance is a valid and subsisting release.
1