RAM SHEO SINGH Vs. RAM NARESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Second Appeal by Ram Sheo Singh against the decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Jaunpur, allowing the appeal of Ram Naresh Singh and two others, Plaintiffs, and thereby decreeing their suit for possession.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs' case, in brief, is that the disputed plots Nos. 2375 and 2376 were the sir of Sita Ram and Ram Narain Singh and they mortgaged them with Babu Nandan Singh, father of Ram Sheo Singh, Defendant No. 1. The plots were so mortgaged in 1337 -F. (1929), and possession was delivered to the mortgagee. On 30 -4 -1947 Ram Narain Singh as Karta of the family executed a permanent lease in favour of the Plaintiffs, on payment of a compensation money of Rs. 2,000/ - . A sum of Rs. 600/ - only was paid before the Sub -Registrar at the time of the registration of the lease, and the balance was left with the lessees for payment to the creditors including the legal representatives of Babu Nandan Singh, mortgagee. All the Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 are the legal representatives of Babu Nandan Singh, mortgagee. The plots were mortgaged with Babu Nandan Singh under two unregistered mortgage -deeds executed on the same day for consideration of Rs. 99/15/ - each. The Plaintiffs' case is that after the execution of the permanent lease they paid Rs. 200/ - to the Defendants, took back the unregistered documents, and possession of the mortgaged plots was also delivered to them. The Plaintiffs thus asked for a perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with their possession and, in the alternative, a decree for possession was prayed for.

(3.) THE Munsif recorded the finding that the plots in dispute were usufructuarily mortgaged with the father of the Defendants; but as after the redemption of the mortgage, i.e. payment of mortgage -money, the Defendants continued in possession in 1356 F. and 1359 F. they became Adhivasis and later Sirdars. On this ground the suit for possession was dismissed and naturally no injunction was granted. The lower appellate court was, however, of the opinion that as there was no delivery of possession, the Defendants continued to hold the laud as mortgagees. They were thus held liable to ejectment and the Plaintiffs were granted the decree for possession.