https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460454 The HC ruled that Mt. Latifunnissa was the rightful owner of the property due to the 1896 decree, allowing her to mortgage it in 1913. The daughters of Khurshed Ali Mian could not challenge this decree as it was binding between their parents. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' mortgage had priority over Rani Barkatunnissa's claims, as she, being a partial surety, did not acquire the rights of the original creditors. The appeal was successful on all points, affirming the plaintiffs' mortgage priority and the binding nature of the decree. en-us Wed, 23 Feb 1927 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:25:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460454 The HC ruled that Mt. Latifunnissa was the rightful owner of the property due to the 1896 decree, allowing her to mortgage it in 1913. The daughters of Khurshed Ali Mian could not challenge this decree as it was binding between their parents. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' mortgage had priority over Rani Barkatunnissa's claims, as she, being a partial surety, did not acquire the rights of the original creditors. The appeal was successful on all points, affirming the plaintiffs' mortgage priority and the binding nature of the decree. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Feb 1927 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460454