The Calcutta Weekly Notes Law Notes and Notes of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the English Law Courts Monday December 6 1909

13 of 1905 in the Court of the 1st Sub-Judge at Arrah in which he was Plaintiff and the Petitioner and the above-mentioned Respondents other than the said Plaintiff were Defendants claiming that it might be declared that the mortgage bond of the 23rd March 1892 the decree dated the 17th March 1893 and the sale held on the 13th April 1904 in the said suit No. [...] By the decree of the High Court the decree of the lower Court was varied and it was declared that the sale of the property in suit of the 13th of April 1904 was not binding on the Plaintiff that his equity of redemption was not lost and that he was entitled to redeem the mortgage in favour of Herambo Nath and the usual redemption order was made the Petitioner being allowed the costs of the action [...] The Court held that there was no substantial question of law involved in the case and that although the decree of the lower Court was varied it was varied in favour of the Appellant (Petitioner) and must be regarded as a decree of affirmance so far as the subject-matter of the suit namely the house was concerned. [...] That the value of the subject matter of the suit in the Court of first instance and in appeal to His Majesty in Council is of the value of Rs. [...] (g) That the High Court having accepted the evidence of the Petitioner as to the manner of his purchase showing that he was a bond fide puchaser for value at the auction sale and there being no evidence before the Court or finding of the Court that the Petitioner was in any way party to or cognisant of any fraud or irregularity in the sale to him ought on the findings of the Court to have held