Holding

Exhibit A6 does not create a charge; consequently the appellant is not a puisne mortgagee and the High Court’s exercise of Order 41 Rule 33 to set aside the decree is proper.

Summary

The dispute involved two competing auction purchasers over a suit property that had been subject to a 1950 security deed (Exhibit A6) executed to raise an attachment before judgment. The trial court held that Exhibit A6 created a charge, granting the appellant a right to redeem the first mortgage but denying possession, and awarded an injunction to the respondent. On appeal, the High Court, invoking Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC, held that Exhibit A6 was merely an undertaking not to alienate the property and did not create a charge, thereby dismissing the appellant's suit. The appellant contended that the trial court's decree for redemption was final and operated as res judicata, and that Order 41 Rule 33 could not be used to set aside that decree. The Supreme Court rejected the res judicata argument, held that the matter was still under appeal and thus not final, and affirmed the High Court’s finding that Exhibit A6 does not constitute a charge. Consequently, the appellant could not claim the status of a puisne mortgagee and his suit was dismissed. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

The nature of Exhibit A6: whether it creates a charge/mortgage or is merely an undertaking not to alienate the property.
Whether the decree for redemption passed by the trial court became final and operates as res judicata.
Whether the High Court could exercise its discretion under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC to set aside the decree despite no appeal by the respondent.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 41 Rule 33, s. Section 11

Subjects

chargemortgagesecurity deedattachment before judgmentres judicataOrder 41 Rule 33decreeredemptioninjunctionpuisne mortgagee

Judgment

A K.MUTHUSWAMJGOUNDER
v.
N. PALANIAPPA GOUNDER

AUGUST 31, 1998

B 1s.c. AGRAWAL, B.N. KIRPAL ANDS. RAIENDRA BABU, n.1

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 :

Judgment debtor executing registered deed for raising attachment before
C judgment-Property subject to prior enrnmbrance i11 favour of Re.1p011-
de11t-Appellant, auction purchaser seeking to enforce a 1ight over the prope1ty
as a puis11e 11101tgagee-T1ial Cowt granting decree on the fi11di11g that it
creates a charge-Prayer for possession rejected-Decree co11fi11ned in first
appeal-011 second appeal suit of the appellant dismissed i11 entirety, by High
Cowt-Whether the dornment creates a charge in favour of appellant-Held,
D 11~Wlzat was granted by the document for raising attachment is only a11
1mde11aki11g which would not amount to a charge-Judgme11t of High Cmm
upheld.

Order XL! Rule 33-Ei:ercise of discretion by High Cowt-At the stage
of second appeal-Suit by appellant decreed in pmt-No appeal by Respo11-
E dent i11 so far as decree granted-Finding of llial Cowt confi1111ed i11 first
appeal-Second appeal by appella11t for remaini11g praye1~--High Cowt dis-
missi11g th~ appeal as well as the Suit itself 011 the ground of no valuable
light-Held, exercise of discretion by High Cowt approp1iate in the cir-
cwnsta11ces of the case.

F Section I I-Res Judicata-Suit by appella11t-Decree in pmt-Appeal
by appellant pe11di11g i11 High Cowt as regards remai11i11g prayer~--High Cowt
dismissing Suit i11 e11tiretyHeld, the findings i11 favour of appellant by tlial
Cowt and fin·t Appellate Cowt ca1111ot operate as Res Judicata.

G The Respondent filed a civil suit to restrain the Appellant from
interfering with the possession of the suit property. The Appellant filed civil
suit for redemption of the suit land and recovery of the possession thereof'.
The suit land originally belonged to one G. who executed a registered
security bond in 1950 for a sum of Rs. 3,01111 hypothecating the suit property
and also executed a promissory note in favour of one V and borrowed
H monies. V obtained a decree and the property was purchased by the
206
K. M. GOUNDER v. N.P. GOUNDER 207

Respondent in Court auction sale which was confirmed on 15.3.57. The A
Respondent also took delivery ofthe property. The Appellant is a purchaser
of the suit property in 1962 when it was sold in execution by one S and Co.
in pursuance of a money decree. In the said suit the plaintiffs got certain
amounts due to G attached hefore G executed a registered deed (Ex. A6) on
12.4.1950 in respect of the said property for raising the attachment. In the
said deed the earlier security bond was recited as a prior encumbrance. The B
suits filed by the Appellant and the Respondent were tried jointly. The main
issue in the suit was whether the deed (Ex. A6) executed by G for raising
.~
the attachment order creates any charge or was it only so an undertaking
not to alienate the suit property.

The Trial Court held that the suit property was intended to be and
c
as a matter of fact given as a security for the payment of the sum of Rs.
7,000 being costs and interest in the case. The trial court further held that
under Ex. A6 a charge of a peculiar nature is created and that there was an
unquestioned liability and there must be some mode of enforcing it. The
trial Court held that the Respondent is the ultimate owner of the final D
equity of redemption subject to the right of the Appellant to redeem the first
mortgage and that the Appellant was not entitled to redeem entire property
including the final equity of redemption and therefore passed a decree for
redemption of the first mortgage in favour of the Appellant but held that
he was not entitled to claim possession of the property and granted the
Respondent the relief of injunction.
E

The first appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed holding that
the relief of injunction was correctly granted to the Respondent. The
appellate court also confirmed the decree for redemption but enhanced the
amount payable from Rs. 1501 to Rs; 5,000. The appeal of the Respondent F
against the non awarding of costs in the injunction suit was dismissed. The
appellate Court held that attachment of charged property does not in-
validate claim in pursuance of the charge and that the purchaser in such
a sale gets the right of the mortgage.

.A On second appeal by the Appellant the Division Bench of the High G
Court held that the facts available in the case would run counter to the
conclusion that the Appellant was a puisne mortgage, that the Appellant
7 could possibly claim the status of a puisne mortgagee only if he had
purchased a property in a sale arising out of execution of a decree based
on a mortgage. The High Court having noticed that there was no appeal H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A by Respondent against the decree passed in favour of the Appellant
considered that it was an appropriate case where powers under order XLl
Rule 33 of the C.P.C. should be exercised and thus dismissed the suit filed
by the Appellant in the'trial Court.

Before this Court it was contended hy the Appellant that the Judg-
B ment of the trial Court granting a decree for redemption became final and
operated as res-judicata by not having been appealed against and the High
Court could not dismiss the suit by setting aside the decree for redemption
in the absence of an appeal by the defendant in the redemption suit, the
High Court even in exercise of powers under Order XLI Rule 33 could
C exercise its powers only against the judgment of the first appellate Court
and not against the judgment of the trial court and destroy the finality of
that part of the trial court judgment which was not appealed against, that
Order XLI Rule 33 was not attracted to the facts arising in the present
case, and that on a proper interpretation the document Ex. A6 creates a
charge over the property and the language of the document made it clear
D that it was offered by way of security to the Court and it should be given
equal efficacy as a security bond and such a document creates a charge hy
operation of law.

The Respondent contended that it is certainly open to them to
E challenge the findings regarding· the nature of Ex. A6 in conferring the
status of puisne mortgage and in order to sustain the decree for injunction
granted in his favour he could support the same by resort to order XLI
Rule 33 C.P.C. and ensure that the Appellant d!les not get any decree
contrary to it, that in doing so the High Court could examine the matter
under order XLI Rule 33 and set aside the decree and that what was
F granted by Ex. A6 was only an undertaking which would not amount to a
1

charge.

Dismissing the appeals, the court

HELD : 1. The argument that the finding as to the nature of Ex. A6
G the security deed has become final as the finding operates as res-judicata
is incorrect. When the entire matter was still in appeal and any part of the
....
finding could be varied by the Appellate Court it is idle to contend that
r
the same had become final. So also when the matter had not attained ,,'
finality and still in dispute the principle of res-judicata could not arise.
H [215-BJ
K. M. GOUNDER v. N.P. GOUNDER [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 209

2. It cannot be said that the High Court's exercise of discretion in A
the special circumstances under order XLI Rule 33 C.P.C. is not germane
to the determination of the matter in issue. [215-E]

3. The document Ex. A6 does not in substance offer suit property by
way of security. Even giving the most liberal construction to the document
it cannot be said that a charge as such has been created in respect of the B
suit property for money to be decreed in the suit. The finding of the High
Court that the document Ex. A6 is not a charge is correct. If that is so the
suit filed by the Appellant has got to be dismissed. [217-C]
,_
4. The decree obtained in the suit was a simple money decree and
not a decree on a cha11,re or mortgage with the result the Appellant who
c
purchased the property in execution of that decree did not acquire the
rights under the said document ·Ex. A6. If really the decree holder in the
proceeding wanted to proceed on the basis of the security arising out of
charge Ex. A6 the requirement of attachment was superfluous. Whether
the claim under Ex. A6 arising out of charge was given up or not, what was D
pursued in the execution was only to attach the suit propeoy without
recourse to charge under Ex. A6. Therefore the Appellant could not have
acquired any rights of mortgagee under Ex. A6, the security bond. For this
reason also the Appellant's suit is liable to be dismissed and the finding
of the High Court is affirmed. [217-E-H] _E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1860-61
of 1981.

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.76 of the Madras High
Court in S.A. No. 658 of 1973 and 710 of 1973. F
K. Parasaran and Krishnamurthi Swami for the Appellant.

G.L. Sanghi, K. Natarajan and V. Balachandran for the Respondent

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. These appeal arise out of dispute between
two competing court auction purchasers on the basis that the rights derived
by each of them is superior to the other emerging out of alleged hypotheca-
tion of such property. Respondent filed a suit in O.S. 12 of 1967 on the
files of II subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli to restrain the appellant H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORT'S (1998J SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A heTein from interfeTing with respondents possession of the suit property.
The appellant filed in the same eomts a suit in O.S. 211 of 1967 for
redemption of the suit land, and recovery of possession thereof. The

-
undisputed facts leading to the two suits are as under : The stiit land
belonged to one Ganesan who executed a registered security bond on
B 18.12.1950 for a sum of Rs. 3,000 hypothecating the suit property and also
executed a promissory note in favour of one Vairavan Chetti:i.r and bor-
rowed moneys. Vairavan Chettiar obtained a decree on the foot of the
Security Bond and in execution thereof brought the suit property to sale.
Respondent purchased the suit property in the said court auction sale on
6.2.1957 and the same was confirmed on 15.3.1957. Respondent took
C delivery of the property through court. Sandanam Mudaliar and Company
filed O.S. No. 108 of 1950 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,493.10 against
Ganesan. In that suit the plaintiffs got certain amounts due to Ganesan
from the South Indian Railway attached before judgment. Ganesan filed
I.A. Nf'. 811 of 1950 in the said suit seeking for raising the attachment
D before judgment of the amount and it was ordered subject to his furnishing
of security. Ganesan executed on 12.4.1950 a registered deed in respect of
the said property for Rs. 7,000, costs of the suit and subsequent interest.
In this said deed recitals were made referring to the security bond dated
18.2.1950, executed in favour of Vairavan Chettiar as a prior encumbrance.·
O.S. No. 108 of 1950 filed by Sandanam Mudaliar &. Co. was decreed on
E 25.1.1956. Sandanam Mudaiiar and Company in execution of the decree
obtained by them brought the property to sale on 15.9.1962 and the original
Appellant Muthuswami Gounder purchased the p1 opcrty on 14.12.1966 for
Rs. 12,250 which sale was confirmed on 19.1.1967.

F The suit filed by appellant and the suit filed by Respondent were
ordered to be tried jointly. One of the questions raised in the suit is
whether the deed dated 12.4.1950 executed by Ganesan in O.S. 108/50
on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge Coimbatore original of
Exhibit A6 creates any charge or was it only an undertaking not to
alienate the suit property. On this question the trial court held at paras
G 13 and 14 as follows:

"13. As said already, the document is named as a security deed.
Exhibit A6 shows that non-judicial stamps for the value of Rs. 105
had been affixed. If it was merely a document for giving an
H undertaking not to alienate there was no necessity to affix stamps
K. M. GOUNDER v. N.P. GOUNDER [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 211

for Rs. 105, which is the correct value of stamps for the sum of A.
Rs. 7,000. Jn the document a specific immovable property (i.e.),
suit property, is noted. It is specifically stated that for Rs. 7,000
and subsequent interest and costs this security bond is written.
Even the prior encumbrance in favour of Vairavan Chettiar in
respect of this property is noted. It is signed by Ganesan and
attested by two witnesses. Taking all these factors found in Exhibit
B
A6, taken along with the fact that the security was given as per
order of Court in a petition to raise the attachment of the amount
of Ganesan in the South Indian Railway, it is evident that the suit
property was intended to be and was as a matter of fact, given as
a security for the payment of the sum of Rs. 7,000 costs and interest c
in the case.

14. It is thus evident that under Exhibit A6 a charge of a peculiar
nature is created and "that here is an unquestioned liability and
there must be some mode of enforcing it (in the words of their D
Lordships of the Privy Council in the ruling quoted supra).
Exhibit A6 is therefore not a mere undertaking not to alienate
but it creates a charge and a liability which could be forced as
per law."

The trial court by its judgment dated 27.11.1967 held that the Respondent E
is the ultimate owner of the final equity of redemption subject to the right
of the appellant to redeem the first mortgage. The trial court also held that
the appellant was not entitled to redeem entire property including the final
equity of redemption and, therefore, passed a decree for redemption of
the first mortgage in favour of the appellant, but held that he was not F
entitled to claim possession of the property and granted the respondent
the relief of injunction in suit O.S. No. 12 of 1967 filed by him.

The appeals filed by the appellant against the said decrees were
· dismissed by the First Appellate Court holding that the relief of injunction G
was correctly granted lo the respondent The appellate court also con-
'i
firmed the decree for redemption but enhanced the amount payable from
Rs. 1501 to Rs. 5,000. The appeal of the respondent against non-awarding
of cost~ in the injunction suit by the trial court was dismissed. The appellate
court on the nature of document at Exhibit A6 observed as follows : H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A "The lower court in paragraphs 12 to 15 has clearly explained
that Exhibit A6 contains all the characteristics of a mortgage. I
agree with the conclusion. Further, as pointed out by the lower
court merely because the petitioner decree-holder in E.P. No.
305/62 (Exhibit A9) altered the prayer into one of attachment and
sale from one of pure sale at the instance of the court, it cannot
B be said the decree-holder had given up his charge. Therefore, the
attachment of charged property does not invalidate claim in pur-
suance of the charge. Therefore, the purchaser in such a sale gets
the rights to the mortgage."

C On second appeal preferred to the High Court by the Appellant, the
matter was referred to a Division Bench of the High Court in view of the
important questions of law arising for determination. The High Court
considered several q;;estions but ultimately held that the facts available in
the case would run counter to the conclusion that the appellant is a puisne
mortgagee. It was observed that :
D
"the claim of the appellant that he holds the status of a second
mortgagee is based on security bond Ex. A6 coupled with the
auction-sale held on 14th December, 1966. That sale is no doubt
there, but then the security bone! does not amount to a mortgage.
E By it no property was conveyed to the court in whose favour it was
executed nor was any charge created on the land in suit. AU that
Ganesan undertook by it was not to alienate the land till the
discharge of the decree passed in suit No. 108 of 1950. As soon as
that decree was passed the security bond became void and of no
effect.
F
It was also held by the High Court that Muthuswami Gounder could
possibly claim the status of a pl!isne mortgagee only if he had purchased
the property in a sale arising out of execution of a decree based on a
mortgage. No such decree was passed in suit No. 108 of 1950. On the other
G hand, the decree was a simple money- decree in execution of which the
land in suit was first attached and then sold. In this view of the matter also
the High Court concluded against the claim of Muthuswami Gounder that
he held the status of a puisne mortgagee.

Having negatived the claim that the appellant ever become a
H mortgagee the sheet anchor of his case was lost. The High Court having
I

J
K. M. GOUNDER v. N.P. GOUNDER [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 213

noticed thartl)ere was no appeal by respondent against the decree passed A
in favour of the appellant considered that it was an appropriate case where
powers under Order XL! Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure should
be exercised and thus dismissed the suit filed by him in the trial court.
'
Aggrieved by the order made by the High Court, these appeals have
been preferred before this court by special leave. B

Shri K. Parasaran, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appel-
lant contended that the judgment of the trial court granting a decree for
redemption became final and operated as res judicata by not having been
appealed against and the High Court could not dismiss the suit by setting C
aside the decree for redemption in the absence of an appeal by the
defendant in the: redemption suit; that the decree for redemption passed
by the trial court having attained finality in the absence of an appeal to the
first appellate court by the defendant, the High Court even in exercise of
· powers tinder Order XU Rule 33 could exercise its powers only against D
the judgment of the First Appellate Court and not as against the judgment
of the trial court and destroy the finality of that part of the trial court
judgment which was not appealed against; that Order XU Rule 33 was not
attracted to the facts arising in the present case.

E
Elaborating this contention Shri Parasaran submitted that before the
First Appellate Court the respondent not only did not appeal against the
decree for redemption but prayed for invocation of power under Order
XL! Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure in acceptance of the decree
for redemption but only sought for enhancement of the redemption amount
on the ground that it was a mistake which called for rectification. Having F
opted for praying for enhancement of amount by accepting the decree for
redemption he was precluded by the principle that a party cannot ap-
probate and reprobate and seek for setting aside the decree for redemption
at the second appeal stage.
G
Sri G .L. Sanghi, learned senior advocate for respondents submitted
that it is certainly open to the respondents to challenge the findings
t regarding the nature of the document Exhibit A6 in conferring the status
of puisne mortgagee and in order to sustain the decree for injunction
granted in his favour he could support the same by resort to Order XL! H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Rule 33 CPC and ensure that the appellant does not get any decree
contrary to it. In dning so, he contended the High Court could examine
the matter under Order XU Ruic 33 CPC and set aside the decree in
favour of the appellant. The High Court took the view that while it is true
that no appeal against the decree passed in favour of the appellant was
B filed by respondent but it was a fit case in which interference under Onj~r
XLI Rule 33 C.P.C. was called for. In exercise of that power set aside the
decree passed in favour of the appellant.

There are three objections raised to this course adopted by the High
Court. Firstly, that the respondent had not filed any appeal against that
C part of the decree in favour of the appellant for redemption of the last
mortgage and he cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold. Secondly, the
finding that the document Exhibit A6 was a charge had become final and
could not be re-opened. Thirdly, that the said finding operates as res
judicata as the respondent has not filed any appeal against the same.
D
Order XLI Rule 33 enables the appellate court to pass any decree
or order which ought to have been made and to make such further order
or decree as the case may be in favour of all or any of the parties even
though (i) the appeal is as to part only of the decree; and (ii) such party
E or parties may not have filed an appeal. The necessary condition for
exercising the power under the Rule is that the parties to the proceeding
are before the court and the question raised properly arises one of the
judgment of tbe lower court and in that event the appellate court could
consider any objection to any part of the order or decree of the court and
F set it right. Wc are fortified in this view by the decision of this Court in
AIR 1988 S.C. 54. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the
circumstances under which the power can be exercised under Order XL!
Rule 33 C.P.C. and each case must depend upon its own facts. The rule
enabks the appellate court to pass any order/decree which ought to have
been passed. The general principle is that a decree is bincling on the parties
G to it until it is set aside in appropriate proceedings, ordinarily the appellate
court must not vary or reverse a decree/order in favour of a party who has
not preferred any appeal and this rule holds good notwithstanding Order
XLI Rule 33 C.P.C.. However, in exceptional cases the rule enables the
appellate court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed
H even if such decree would be in favour of parties who have not filed any

!
i
K. M. GOUNDER v. N.P. GOUNDER [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 215

appeal. The power though discretionary should not be declined to be A
exercised merely on the ground that the party has not filed any appeals.
We are not impressed with argument that the finding as to the nature of
Exhibit A6 the Security Deed has become final as the finding operates as
res judicata. When the entire matter was still in appeal and any part of the
finding could be varied by the appellate court it is idle to contend that the B
same had become final. So afao when the matter had not attained finality
and still in dispute the principle of res judicata could not arise. In some
case finding recorded at an earlier stage will operate a res judicata if such
finding had become final. In the present case that was not the position. The
High Court had to find out the rights of the parties arising out of the deed
under Exhibit A6 and necessarily had to give a finding one way or the other c
to determine the status of the appellant as puisne mortgagee. In doing so.
the High Court decided that the document Exhibit A6 did not amount to
a charge and therefore, the appellant did not derive any rights of puisne
mortgagee thereunder. The High Court having so held proceeded further
to upset the decree as otherwise if the decree for redemption remained in D
the face of the finding of non-existence of a charge with the consequent
right as puisne mortgagee, the position would be anomalous if not absurd.
And so, the High Court in the special circumstances arising in this case
exercised the discretion vested in it under Order XLI Rule 33 C.P.C. It
cannot be said that such a question was not germane to the determination E
of the matter in issue. To defend the finding in his favour the respondent
could contend that the appellant could not claim to be a puisne mortgagee
as no charge arises from Ex. A6. In that event it cannot be said that there
is any inconsistency in the stand of respondent. Therefore, we find that
there is no merit in the contention of the appellant and the same is rejected. F

Shri Parasaran next contended that on a proper interpretation, the
document Exhibit A6 in O.S. 108/50 dated 12.4.1950 creates a charge
over property; that the language of the document made it clear that it
was offered by way of security to the Court and a document executed
in favour of the court under the orders of the Court should be given G
equal efficacy as a security bond and such a document creates a charge
by operation of law.

In reply Shri Sanghi submitted that what was granted by Exhibit A6
was only an undertaking, which would not amount to a charge. H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A The deed of security executed in the case in O.S. No. 108 of 1950
between Messers, Sa11da11am Mudaliar a11d Co. v. Ga11esa11 Pillai reads as
follows :

"Deed of security executed this the 12th day of April 1950 in favour
of Coimbatore Sub-Court by M. Ganesan son of Magudapathi
B Gounder, Businessman & Agriculturist residing at Gowripuram,
Karur Taluk Dt. The aforesaid plaintiff AM. Sundara Mudaliar
has filed the suit against me for recovery of Rs. 6,493.13 Annas
with subsequent interest and costs. He has also obtained an order
for attachment before judgment of the monies payable to me from
c South India Railway. In order to vacate the order of the aforesaid
order for attachment before judgment I have filed an application
I.A. No. 811 of 1950 in the said suit O.S. 108 of 1950.

As per the order of this Hon'ble Court I have executed this
D deed of security in the sum of Rs. 7000 and subsequent interest
and cost over my self acquired properties i11 my possessio11 and
prope1ties which are 11a11ja la11ds a11d are desC1ibed in the schedule.
In the event of a decree being passed in the suit I will not alienate
the properties till the decree is discharged. The properties set out
E hereunder belong to me under right of purchase dated 14.10.46.
']'here is already a prior mortgage over the properties for a sum
of Rs. 3,000 in favour of one Viravan Chettiar. These properties
are capable of being ploted into house sites and therefore their
present val.ue is about Rs. 15,000. I hereby affirm that there is no
kind of encumbrance whatsoever over the properties except the
F
one mentioned above."

A perusal of this document will indicate that there was an attachment
before judgment for money payable to Ganesan by South India Railway
and those monies stood attached to satisfy the decree to be passed in the
G said O.S. No. 108 of 1950. An application was filed by Ganesan to vacate
the order of attachment in I.A. No. 811 of 1950 in O.S. No. 108 of 1950.
In compliance with the order of the Court he had executed a deed of
security for a sum of Rs. 7,000 and subsequent interest and costs over his
self acquired properties in his possession described in the schedule. He
H stated that in the event of a decree being passed in the suit, he will not

f
{.
K. M. GOUNDER v. N.P. GOUNDER [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 217

alienate the properties till the decree is discharged and, therefore, A
he describes the prior encumbrances in respect of the properties as on the
date of the execution of the security bond. A charge is an obligation to
make payment out of the property specified. In the present case there is
no clear recital in the document of having created an obligation to make
payment of the decreetal amount out of the property in question. B

The document Exhibit A6 Security Bond does not in substance offer
suit property by way of security. Even giving the most liberal construction
to the document we cannot say that a charge as such has been created in
respect of the suit property for money to be decreed in the suit. All that it
states is that in the event of decree being passed not to alienate the
c
property till the decree is discharged, which is a mere undertaking without
creating a charge. Therefore, 'we agree with the finding of the High Court
that the document at Exhibit A-6 is not a charge. If that is so the suit filed
by the appellant has got to be dismissed.
D

There is yet another reason as to why the High Court held that the
appellant cannot claim any rights under Exhibit A-6 the alleged Security
Bond executed in O.S. 108/50. The decree obtained in that suit was a
simple money decree and not a decree on a charge or mortgage with the E
result the appellant who purchased the property in execution of that decree
did not acquire the rights under the said document Ex. A-6. This finding
appears to be correct. The decree holder sought to execute the decree in
E.P. 305/62 to order sale of the suit property stating that the same is
secured in the bond Ex. A-6. However, the executing court did not proceed
on that basis and raised objections thereto. Thereafter, the decree holder F
sought for attachment of the suit property independent of the so-called

- charge under Ex. A-6. If really the decree holder in the proceedings wanted
to proceed on the basis of the security arising out of charge under Ex. A-6.
The requirement of attachment was superfluous. Whether the claim under
Ex. A-6 arising out of charge was given up or not what was pursued is the G
execution proceeding was only to attach the suit property without recourse
to charge under Ex. A-6. Therefore, the appellant could not have acquired
any rights of mortgagee under Ex. A-6, the Security Bond. For this reason
also appellant's suit is liable to be dismissed and the finding of the High
Court, therefore, stands affirmed. H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A The other question raised and elaborately argued do not assume any
importance in the view we have taken. Hence we do not propose to answer
them.

In the 'result the appeals stand dismissed and in the circumstances of
the case shall be no order as to costs.
B
V.M. Appeals dismissed.

'