AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We think the decision of the lower Court is right. Assuming that the 1st defendant was entitled under the powers conferred upon him as
mortgagee by Exhibit-A to admit tenants to items Nos. 1 to 22 when they became vacant, we think he had no right to admit himself which he did
by including these lands in his patta. A mortgagee is in the position of a trustee and cannot grant leases or make other dispositions of the mortgaged
property in his own favour and of such a kind as to give rise to a possible conflict between his interest and his duty. We also think the District
Judge is right in coming to the conclusion that the 1st defendant did not part with his interest in these items by transferring them to the pattah of his
undivided son. We think that where a person in the position of a trustee makes a grant of the trust property to his undivided son the relation of the
parties is sufficient to raise the presumption that he is himself interested and to bring the case within the mischief of the rule.
These observations also apply to item No. 23 which was granted by the 1st defendant on cowle to his son the 2nd defendant.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.