AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Subordinate Judge has agreed with the District Munsif in finding that the Kanom sued on is not proved to be genuine. But he has
nevertheless given plaintiff a decree on the ground that Exhibits A, B, C & E, contain ad-missions of 1st defendant and his brother being
Kanomdal, under those through whom plaintiff claims, and that these, are i admissions made within the statutory period so as to prevent the
plaintiff''s claim to redeem being time barred. We agree with West J, in Govindrav Deshmuk v. Bagho Deshmukh ILR (1884) Section 548 in
holding that a plaintiff failing to establish the mortgage on which the suit was based should not be allowed to fall back upon some other as to which
admissions may have been made by the defendants in other proceedings. In Unnian v. Rama ILR (1884) M. 415 the decree was passed on a
mortgage expressly pleaded, and relied on by the defendant; so also in Unicha Kandyib Kunhi Kutti Nair v. Valia Pidigail Kimhanied Kutti
Maraccar 4 M.H.C.R. 359
We therefore set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif.
Respondents must pay appellant''s costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court.