AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Knox J.M., J.—The second point made by the trial Court was that the deed of agreement must have been executed under coercion. Any one who borrows money is in need of money, and no other pressure or coercion has been alleged, much less proved. "Coercion" in the legel sense means something very much more than merely the need for raising a loan.
The last point made by the trial Court was that it believed the evidence led to show that the Respondent was still in possession. Even if he were in possession, about which I am very doubtful, he is certainly not an ex-proprietary tenant, and this is merely a case for fixing ex-proprietary rent. The Respondent has definitely waived his ex-proprietary rights, and the law allows his sir rights to be revived, if he pays off the mortgage within 12 years. Accordingly I would allow the appeal with costs and Rs. 15 pleaders'' fees.
Drake Brockman S.M.
I concur.