RAM NATH Vs. BAIJNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 14-5-1997 passed by First Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No. 145-A/94 whereby the first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 9-11-94 passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Joura in Civil Suit No. 80- A/91 and thereby decreed the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for redemption of a mortgage.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the present suit for redemption of mortgagee alleging that they are the Bhumiswamis of an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 663/1, having an area of one bigha and fifteen biswas situated in village Agrauta, tehsil Joura, district Morena. The land was initially owned by one Angad and the present plaintiffs are his heirs. Angad died in October 1969. The plaintiffs required a loan for performing last rites of deceased Angad, therefore, they approached defendant No. 1, Ram Nath, for loan. On 18-12-1969 a sale-deed, Ex. P-1 was executed by plaintiff No. 1, Baijnath in favour of Ram Nath. The sale deed was executed on his own behalf as well as on behalf of minors. In the said document it was also agreed that if the plaintiffs repay the amount of Rs. 1750.00 within a period of two years then the property will be reconveyed to the plaintiffs. The possession of the property was also handed over to the defendant as mortgagee and thus a usufructuary mortgage was oreated. It was agreed that the mortgagee shall have no right to get his name mutated. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs have repaid the amount of Rs. 1750.00 and, therefore, they are entitled for redemption. However, the defendant instead of reconvening the property has filed proceedings for mutation against the said property which was opposed. Ultimately, the matter went up to the Board of Revenue and the objections of the plaintiffs were rejected and the name of the defendant was mutated.

(3.) The defendant filed his written statement alleging that the transaction in question was not a mortgage but was of a sale with a condition to reconvey the property within a period of two years and as the plaintiffs have failed to repay tthe amount within a period of two years, the plaintiffs have lost their title to the suit property. It is also alleged in the alternative that even if the property was mortgaged it was for a period of two years and in case the amount is repaid within two years the possession of the plaintiffs after expiry of two years has become hostile. It is also alleged that the suit which is filed for possession on 30-7-1991 has become barred by limitation.