SAKINABI SIRAJUDDIN KANCHWALA Vs. SHRILAL HANSRAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 who suffered a decree for redemption which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this Appeal in short are as under:The suit property originally belonged to one Arjun Nivrutti Darwade and his family. Defendants father Sirajuddin was inducted as a tenant in the suit property way back in the year 1939. Rent was increased from time to time. In the year 1952, Arjun Darwade and his family was in need of money. As a result of that, they made a request to tenant Sirajuddin to advance a sum of Rs.12,000/to them. Sirajuddin agreed to advance Rs.12,000/upon an execution of a mortgage deed in his favour. On 2911952 Arjun Darwade mortgaged the suit property to Sirajuddin. Term of the said mortgage was fixed for a period of 21 years. It was therefore to expire in the year 1973. In the mean while, Arjun Darwade sold the suit property to the present Plaintiff in the year 1956. The Plaintiff therefore has now instituted this suit for redemption of mortgage, since the defendants had refused to redeem the mortgage and deliver back the possession.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants. The defendants do not dispute that there was mortgage deed executed by Arjun Darwade in favour of Sirajuddin. They do not dispute that the mortgage was to be in existence for a period of 21 years. They however contend that even though there was a transaction of mortgage between Arjun Darwade and Sirajuddin, still Sirajuddin continued to be a tenant. He was occupying the suit property as a tenant and he was also paying rent to Arjun Darwade which was agreed to be appropriated towards interest payable on the sum secured under the mortgage. It is their contention that even though the mortgage period is over, they continue to be tenants and they have a right to be in possession of the suit property in spite of redemption of mortgage as tenants.