BADRI PRASAD Vs. MATA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the appellate decree of Shri S. B. Banerji, Additional Civil Judge, Partapgarh dated 9th April 1946.

(2.) It appears that one Raja Ram was the owner of 1/4 share of patti Mansa and 2/8- of patti Moti Lal. On 8-6-1931, he mortgaged these properties with possession to the plaintiff. Badri Prasad for Rs. 1000. On nth April 1940, Raja Ram, mortgagor sold his equity of redemption in respect of both the pattis for Rs. 15,00 to the defendants. The plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption. His claim was decreed in respect of patti Mansa only on payment of Rs. 500 within two months from the date of the decree. The date of the decree was 30th May 1943. The plaintiff appealed to the Chief Court and the appeal was dismissed on 24th November 1943. Thereupon he deposited Rs. 500 pre-emption money in respect of Patti Mansa in the Court of Munsif Kunda on 15th January 1944. In August 1944, the defendants filed an application under Section 12 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act against the plaintiff for redemption of the properties mortgaged both in Pattis Mansa and Motilal. Certain' issues were framed and immediately thereafter both the counsel of the parties told the Court that the suit be decreed for redemption on payment of Rs. 1000 by the defendants. Thereafter on 1st June 1945 the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was in fact the owner of the Patti Mansa and alleged that it was by some mistake that the redemption suit had not been contested in respect of Patti Mansa and that the decree obtained under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, in respect of that patti was not binding on him. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have held that there was no mistake whatever when the decree under Section 12, was granted, that the deposit of pre-emption money should have been made within two months from the date of the decree dated 30th May 1942 and not within two months from the date the Chief Court decree and as the deposit had not been made within the time allowed by the decree the plaintiff did not become the owner of Patti Mansa and in the result the plaintiff's suit was dismissed and his appeal was also dismissed.

(3.) It has once again been urged that it was by mistake that the compromise decree was passed and that under the law the deposit made by the plaintiff appellant was valid and that he acquired title to Patti Mansa. I have heard the learned counsel and I am satisfied that there is no force in this appeal.