HARI MOHAN Vs. BINDBASNI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-9-1967 passed by Sri B. N. Srivastava, Additional Civil Judge, Jaunpur in Civil appeal No. 292 of 1966. Very briefly stated the case of the appellants was that on 5-5-1952 Bindbasni, defendant respondent no 1 as manager of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and the other respondents mortgaged fixed rate tenancy plots in appellants' favour for a sum of Rs. 1000/-. The mortgage amount was payable by 17-5-1954. The appellants filed suit to enforce the mortgage in 1965. Both the Courts below dismissed the appellants' suit on the ground that the rights of the respondents vested in the State on coming into force of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforme Act i.e., with effect from 1-7-1952 and as such the appellants could not enforce the mortgage. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Section 4 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act hereinafter called the Act clearly lays down that all estates shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances. Word "estate" has been defined in Sec tion 3 (8). THIS definition not only includes the right of the intermediaries of the zamindars but also the rights of all the tenants cultivating or occupying the land. (Vide L. Bhal Singh v. Bhoh 1963 A.L.J. 288. After this vesting the State settled the estate with the zamindars or the tenants, as the case may be. Fixed rate tenants became Bhumidhars under Section 18. The position that follows from the above provision is that with effect from 1-7-1952 the mortgage in favour of the appellants came to an end and the tenancy plots vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. It means that the appellants cannot enforce their mortgage against the property which was mortgaged by the respondent No. 1. In the above situation the appellants could only claim money from the mortgagor under Section 87 (1) as the deed of mortgage was a registered document. The appellants could sue for recovery of money within 6 years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act as laid down in the case of Monbala Devi v. Indra Balu Batya A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1295. The appellants brought suit more than six years after 1st July, 1952. Therefore, the suit for recovery of money became time barred and could not be decreed by the Courts below. In view of the above there is no force in this appeal which is dismissed. In the unusual circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs incurred in this Court.