GTJRUCHARAN KOERI Vs. BIBI SHAMSUNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. They filed a suit for redemption, of mortgage bond dated 28th July, 1916 executed by Gopal Mahto. the ancestor of the appellants in favour of one Akram Hussain. The suit had to be instituted when the defendant refused to accept the mortgage money. which was tendered to her. The trial Court dismissed the said suit. On appeal being filed by the appellants, the suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the respondent was directed to withdraw the money deposited in her favour and to deliver vacant possession of the land to the appellants within the time fixed by the Court, failing which the appellants were to take possession of the disputed land through the process of the Court. On second appeal being filed on behalf of the defendant/ respondent, the High Court dismissed the suit on the ground that as the suit for redemption had been filed only in respect of one of the five plots, which had been mortgaged in favour of the predecessor in interest of the defendant, the said suit was not maintainable.

(3.) Before the High Court. a stand was taken on behalf of the respondent that by the aforesaid mortgage deed, plot Nos. 557, 558, 559, 564 and 565, having a total area of 74 decimals, were mortgaged, but the appellants had sought redemption in respect of two plots i.e. plot Nos. 565 and 551:out of the two plots, plot No. 551 was never the subject matter of mortgage and as such the suit for redemption was not maintainable. The appellants have produced a copy of the plaint along with the schedule thereof and it was urged on their behalf that the suit has been dismissed by the High Court under misconception about the factual position in respect of the subject matter of dispute. A grievance was also made that the question whether the suit for redemption is in respect of all the plots which had been mortgaged or only in respect of part thereof, was a question of fact and as such any such plea regarding non-maintainability of the suit, should not have been taken on behalf of the respondent for the first time before the High Court.