RAMKALI Vs. MURLIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appln. in revn. Under Section 115, Civil P. C. directed against an appellate order confirming the order of the Asst. Colr. of the first class passed in proceedings started by an appln. Under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The appln. has been allowed by both the Cts. below. To avoid confusion, the appcts. Under Section 12 of the Act would hereafter be refd. to as "the pltfs." & the opposite parties to that appln. would be refd. to as "the defts."

(2.) It appears that the pltfs. filed an appln. Under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for redemption of an old mtge. executed in Jeth of 1285 F. (corresponding to June 1878). The property mortgaged consisted of four plots of land, viz. plots Nos. 1061, 809, 426 & 1334, with a total area of five bighas & thirteen biswas, in village Tindwari. The pltfs. claimed to be the representatives of the original mtgors. of the property in suit. The original mtgors. were two persons, viz. Binda Chhangua, sons of Dayal Kachhi. The mtgors, held the plots in question on "Bhej Barari" tenure. The original mtgee. was one Tika, son of Anaisu. The defts. are the representatives of the original mtgee. The consideration for the mtge. was Rs. 10 only. It was provided in the mtge. deed that when the principal money with interest thereon was paid up by the usufruct of the property mortgaged the property would be redeemed in the month of Jeth of that year & possession thereof would be delivered to the mtgors.

(3.) The case of the pltfs. was to this effect: Binda & Chhangua, the original mtgors, were the last Bhej Barars of the plots in suit. They disappeared from the village & were untraceable for about thirty years prior to the date of the appln. They must, therefore, be presumed to be dead. They had left no heirs behind them. The plts. claimed a right to redeem the property on the ground that they as zamindars had acquired the rights of Binda & Chhangua who must be deemed to have abandoned the plots in suit. Lastly, it was alleged that the mtge. money had been paid up by the usufruct of the property mortgaged long before the date of the appln.