https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276121 A compromise decree that expressly incorporated liability for recovery from the defendants' other properties or person was treated as a combined decree, so no separate personal decree under Order 34, Rule 6 CPC was required or maintainable against the non-mortgagor appellants. The text also notes that mortgagees or puisne encumbrancers are not personally liable for royalty merely because of their mortgage status, and personal liability cannot be fastened absent an independent legal basis or proof of possession. The result was that the decree against the appellants was set aside, while the mortgagor's liability remained unaffected. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 1932 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:50:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276121 A compromise decree that expressly incorporated liability for recovery from the defendants' other properties or person was treated as a combined decree, so no separate personal decree under Order 34, Rule 6 CPC was required or maintainable against the non-mortgagor appellants. The text also notes that mortgagees or puisne encumbrancers are not personally liable for royalty merely because of their mortgage status, and personal liability cannot be fastened absent an independent legal basis or proof of possession. The result was that the decree against the appellants was set aside, while the mortgagor's liability remained unaffected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Mar 1932 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276121