KUMAR HARISH CHANDRA SINGH DAS & ORS. versus BANSIDHAR MOHANTY AND ORS.
A mortgage deed is validly attested if one of the attesting witnesses, who is the lender, is not a party to the deed, and the actual lender of money is entitled to sue upon the transaction, even if the deed stands in the name of a benamidar.
- Parties
- Appellant: Kumar Harish Chandra Singh Das; Respondent No. 1: Bansidhar Mohanty; Respondent No. 2 / Third Defendant: Jagannath Debata; Respondent / Second Defendant: Dr. Jyotsna Dei
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 05 May 1965
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Orissa High Court Judgment and Decree Dated July 26, 1960 in First Appeal No. 6 of 1954
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Benami Transaction, Mortgage Deed, Attestation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kumar Harish Chandra Singh Das
Appellant
Bansidhar Mohanty
Respondent No. 1
Jagannath Debata
Respondent No. 2 / Third Defendant
Dr. Jyotsna Dei
Respondent / Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Orissa High Court Judgment and Decree Dated July 26, 1960 in First Appeal No. 6 of 1954
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mortgage deed was validly attested; Whether respondent no.1 (the lender) was entitled to institute the suit
Ratio Decidendi
A mortgage deed is validly attested if one of the attesting witnesses, who is the lender, is not a party to the deed, and the actual lender of money is entitled to sue upon the transaction, even if the deed stands in the name of a benamidar.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Decree of the Orissa High Court upheld
- Appellant's suit dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment