BAIJNATH SINGH Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Laiq Singh and Teja Singh executed a mortgage deed in favour of Gillu Mal to secure a loan of Rs. 470 9 0. The property mortgaged consisted of some plots in village Hardoi. The whole family of Laiq Singh and Teja Singh, who was nephew of Laiq Singh, became extirct and Mt. Parbati, widow of Teja Singh, entered into possession of his property. On 7-11-1926, Mt. Parbati made a gift of some property to her daughter's son, Baijnath. On 25-11 1941, Baijnath, along with one Puttu, who claimed to be the sister's son of Teja Singh and as such an heir of Teja Singh, made an application under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Belief Act to the Revenue Court at Hardoi. They claimed that they were the legal representatives of the original mortgagors and that the entire mortgage money had been paid off out of the usufruct of the property. They accordingly prayed for a decree for redemption without payment.

(2.) The trial Court found that the applicants were the legal representatives of Laiq Singh and Teja Singh and that the entire mortgage money had been paid off. It accordingly decreed the suit.

(3.) The mortgagee went up in appeal and the mortgagors filed cross-objection with regard to a particular item of income which was found against them. The District Judge transferred the case to the Civil Judge of Hardoi for disposal. The learned Civil Judge held that it was not established that Puttu was the sister's son of Teja Singh or that, at the time of the death of Mt. Parbati there waa no nearer heir of Teja Singh alive. With regard to Baijnath it was held that it was not established that the property which was transferred to him by Mt. Parbati was the pro. perty which included the mortgaged property. He accordingly held that neither of the two applicants had any right to present an application for redemption, and he allowed the appeal and dismissed the application.