RAM DULAR Vs. RAJ KARAN PANDEY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the Plaintiff appeals to this Court in the following circumstance:

(2.) ONE Raghurai Pandey made a usufructuary mortgage of the suit property in favour of Baldeo Pandey, the Defendant Respondent, by a mortgage deed, dated 8 -1 -1923. Raghurai Pandev, the mortgagor, sold the equity of redemption to the Plaintiff Appellant for Rs. 500 by a registered sale deed dated 25 -5 -1927. Out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs. 190 was left with the Plaintiff by the mortgagor for payment to the Defendant mortgagee towards the mortgage debt. It is said tint the Plaintiff tendered the amount of Rs. 190 to Defendant towards the mortgage debt as required by Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, but the Defendant refused to accept the amount and that on his refusal the Plaintiff was obliged to file the suit, out of which, this appeal has arisen, for the redemption of the mortgage and for recovery of possession of the mortgaged property.

(3.) THE learned Munsif held that the Plaintiff was the owner of the equity of redemption in the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 26 5 1927 in his favour. It was further held by the learned Munsif that the sale deed dated 18 -2 -1927 was not a registered sale deed and it could not, therefore, transfer the mortgagor's equity of redemption in the suit property to the Defendant. In spite of the said sale deed, the Defendant remained a mortgagee and the mortgage was liable to be redeemed at the suit of the Plaintiff. The learned Munsif, accordingly, decreed the claim of the Plaintiff' and thereupon the Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif.