NIRMAL SINGH Vs. AHIBARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of an application made by the plaintiff-appellants under Section 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 14-12-1929 in which two plots Nos. 42 and 54 of village Gutkamau Panch-sala, pargana Shahabad district Hardoi had been mortgaged by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defen dant-respondents in lieu of a sum of Rs. 1000/-. According to the plaintiffs' allegations the entire land had since been included within the limits of the town area Pali where the Zamindari had not been abolished by means of notifica tion under Section 4 of the U. P. Zamin dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. As such the provisions of the U. P. Agri culturists' Relief Act including Sec. 12 thereof were still in force with regard to this mortgage. As the plaintiff-ap pellants were agriculturists within the meaning of that Act by virtue of their holding these plots, they were entitled to maintain this application. They fur ther alleged that the entire mortgage money including interest at the rate prescribed by the Agriculturists' Relief Act had been satisfied out of the usufruct of the mortgaged property. So they prayed for redemption of the mortgage without any payment or on payment of such amount as may be found due by them by the court.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendants. They alleged that 14 biswas area of plot No. 42 was outside the limits of town area Pali and situate in village Gutkamau which had been covered by the notification made under Section 4 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and so the provisions of Section 12 of the Agriculturists Relief Act would not be applicable to this area as this Act shall be deemed to have been repealed with respect to this area under Section 339 read with List 1 of Schedule III of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The rest of the area could, of course, be redeemed on payment of the full mort gage money as no part of the principal had been satisfied from the usufruct which was hardly sufficient even to pay the interest at the prescribed rate.

(3.) A notice of this second appeal was served on the defendant-respondents but no appearance was put in on their behalf. I heard Sri Mohd. Husain. learn ed counsel for the appellants and also perused the record.