RAMAIN PRASAD Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ia No. 2. of 1999 is allowed.

(2.) This is the plaintiffs' appeal. The plaintiffs brought a suit for redemption of mortgage as well as for possession. The trial court found that the father of the plaintiffs, Wasudeo, was a patta holder, and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession. However, (the case of plaintiffs that they are mortgagors was not accepted and no relief was granted by the trial court to that affect. Aggrieved, the defendants \\ respondents filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court. 1 The first Appellate Court found that the mortgage was not proved and in fact, it was defendant no. 2 who remained in possession over the land for considerable period of time. ) The first Appellate Court also found that the plaintiffs' predecessor by Ext. D-1 surrendered the right in favour of defendant) no. 2. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was set aside. The plaintiffs' second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. It is against the said judgment, the plaintiffs are in appeal before us.

(3.) 1 Earned Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the trial court having recorded a finding that the plaintiffs were the mortgagors and defendant no. 1 was the mortgagee, the first Appellate Court and the second Appellate Court fell in error in holding that the trial court has held that the plaintiffs are not mortgagors.