AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The finding of the Subordinate Judge is very unsatisfactory. In one passage he says that the work done by the defendant was in the nature of
repairs, and in another place he uses language implying that substantial improvements were effected. What has to be determined is whether the
expenditure was necessary to preserve the house from destruction. (See Transfer of Property Act, Section 72). A mortgagee is not at liberty to
effect improvements and charge the mortgagor therewith.
It is suggested that the plaintiff is liable because he consented to the work being done. But this consent would not make him liable unless given
under circumstances to make it equivalent to a promise to reimburse the cost to the defendants.
We must ask the Subordinate Judge to find
(i) whether the expenditure was necessarily incurred for the preservation of the property;
(ii) whether, if not, the plaintiff agreed to repay the cost.
The findings are to be submitted within one month after the re-opening of the Court after the recess. Seven days will be allowed for filing
objections after the findings have been posted up in this Court.