https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287466 A mortgage deed executed by a pardanashin woman is not binding where she understood the transaction generally but did not understand that she incurred personal liability, because a disposition must be shown to be the product of free and intelligent consent. The deed was therefore ineffective against her personal obligation, but it remained enforceable against the appellant's own beneficial interest in the property, which he was competent to mortgage independently. As to the Guha defendants' later mortgages, the limited relief granted under Order XXXIV was upheld, confining them to redemption or to payment of their mortgage money from any surplus after satisfaction of the plaintiff's mortgage. The appeal failed in all material respects. en-us Thu, 23 May 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:30:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287466 A mortgage deed executed by a pardanashin woman is not binding where she understood the transaction generally but did not understand that she incurred personal liability, because a disposition must be shown to be the product of free and intelligent consent. The deed was therefore ineffective against her personal obligation, but it remained enforceable against the appellant's own beneficial interest in the property, which he was competent to mortgage independently. As to the Guha defendants' later mortgages, the limited relief granted under Order XXXIV was upheld, confining them to redemption or to payment of their mortgage money from any surplus after satisfaction of the plaintiff's mortgage. The appeal failed in all material respects. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 May 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287466