Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)Mahabir Gope And Others vs Harbans Narain Singh And Others on 14 April, 1952
Learned counsel for the appellants has further urged that the general rule that if the mortgagees are evicted, then the tenants inducted by the mortgagees may also be evicted, is subject to exceptions, as enumerated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Gope v. Harbans Narain Singh, AIR 1952 S C 205. It is urged, in this context, that if defendants fourth party became tenants under the Special Act, it is open to them to contend that even if the mortgagees are ousted, their tenants can take recourse to a defence under the Special Act in favour of the tenants. Here also, the point is of no substance, if it is held that this objection should have been raised by the defendants fourth party at the appropriate stage. It was open to them to urge in the suit for redemption that they were not liable to be evicted in a mere suit for redemption, in view of the Special Act in favour of the tenants. But this defence was not urged in the suit for redemption, and a decree was passed in favour of the mortgagor for possession. In our opinion, it is not open to the defendants fourth party, the appellants, now to contend that in spite of the decree passed in the suit for redemption, they are not liable to be evicted in execution.
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1