RAMRAO GOVINDRAO AKOLKAR Vs. PAHUMAL PESHURAM SINDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question in this Letters patent Appeal is whether a tenant who accepts from his landlord a pure usufructuary mortgage of the same house, in which he is the tenant, is entitled to continue in its possession even after the mortgage is redeemed. The learned single Judge has answered this question in the affirmative.

(2.) RAMA Rao appellant mortgaged the suit house on September 8, 1951 in favour of Pahumal. This was a pure usufructurary mortgage. Pahumal was already in possession of the suit house as Rama Rao's tenant. The present sun was resisted by Rama Rao for redemption. (It is not necessary to state the facts relating to proceedings under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, prior to the suit ). In the present suit a decree for redemption has been passed in favour of Rama Rao, but at the same time it has been directed that the defendant Pahumal would continue in possession as tenant, in as much as his tenancy has revived simultaneously with the redemption.

(3.) THREE decisions have been relied on by the learned single Judge: Jagmohan Ahir v. Ram Kishen Misir, AIR 1936 Oudh 322, Kallu v. Diwan, ILR 24 All 487 and Kashi v. Durga, 12 Ind Cas 734 (Nag ). All these cases support the view taken by the learned single Judge, although they were cases relating to agricultural tenancies.