AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O''Kinealy, J.—This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of 24-Pergunnahs, dated the 26th February 1896. The suit was one in which the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee, sued on amortgage, executed by the executors of one Amrita Lal Mukerjee, after 1881 and before 1889. He sought to make not only the executors but also the present Appellants liable on the ground that the executors having held the estate in them, they had a perfect right to mortgage the property.
The argument of the Appellants now is that the executors had no power whatever to bind the estate as against the Appellants who were then minors.
Between 1881 and 1889 neither an executor nor an administrator had power to sell real property without the sanction of the Court; but in the year 1889 Act VI of that year came into operation, and sec. 19 of that Act made valid all invalid sales that had been effected from 1881 onwards. This ease has been brought after the Act of 1889 came into operation, and therefore the act of the executors cannot be impeached. But then it is said that by clauses 2 and 3 of the Will there was a restriction put on the executors in dealing with the immoveable property, and it is argued that the executors'' power to sell does not include the power to mortgage. Looking at clauses 2 and 3 we do not think that they were meant as a limitation on the powers of the executors. They do not say that the executors had not the power to mortgage the property, nor do we find anything that interferes with the power of the executors under the law. Under these circumstances we think that the Judge was quite right in making a decree binding the minors as well as the others, and we dismiss the appeal with one set of costs to the Respondents.