LAWS(APH)-2016-10-33

CHOUDHARI PALKAJI Vs. RUKMINI DEVI AND OTHERS

Decided On October 27, 2016
Choudhari Palkaji Appellant
V/S
Rukmini Devi And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.29 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Asifabad and appellant in A.S.No.7 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Court at Asifabad, preferred this second appeal under Sec. 100 of C.P.C, challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

(2.) For convenience of reference, the ranks given to both the parties before the Trial Court will be adopted throughout the judgment.

(3.) The plaintiff's mother Bondakka W/o Mahadu, in her capacity as a natural guardian and in view of legal necessity, mortgaged the agricultural lands bearing Sy.Nos.272, 277 and 303 in total of extent of Ac.36-28 guntas situated at Rebbena Village of Asifabad Taluk. The 2nd defendant's father who is since deceased and who was 1st defendant's husband and father of the defendant No.2, Bondakka in her capacity as a natural guardian and in view of legal necessity borrowed Rs.500.00 under registered mortgage deed dated 5.7.1950 bearing document No.3 of 1950 by virtue of which the said mortgagee was put in possession of the land and agreed to remain in possession of the said land for a term of 20 years and cultivated the same duly paying the revenue to the government. The said mortgaged property would become the property of the said mortgagor immediately on the expiration of the said term of 20 years in case the debt was not discharged. As per the terms of the mortgage deed, the mortgage commenced with effect from 05.07.1950 and term of 20 years expired by 04.07.1970 and the plaintiff became entitled to redeem the said mortgage within a period of 30 years from 05.07.1970. The said mortgage money of Rs.500.00 secured under the mortgage deed came to be liquidated automatically within the period of 20 years and there remained nothing to be paid to the said mortgagee under the said mortgage deed. The said mortgagee, Ganeshlal expired about 8 years ago leaving behind defendants 1 & 2 as legal heirs and they are liable to deliver vacant possession after redeeming the mortgage.