RUP RAM DHAN SINGH Vs. MUNSHI CHHILU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, rohtak, passing a decree for possession of the land in dispute by redemption on the condition that the plaintiff deposits in the Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- payable to the defendant, on or before 18-12-1958, failing which his suit would stand dismissed with costs.

(2.) IT is common ground that on 3-2-1956 a mortgagee was effected on the land in suit by the plaintiff in favour of Rup Ram defendant-appellant for a sum of Rs. 6,000/ -. This mortgage was with possession, and interest and profit from the land were to counterbalance each other. Its mutation was sanctioned on4-4-1956. No period having been prescribed, it was open to the mortgagor to redeem it at any time. On 17-3-1958 the mortgagor put in an application for redemption in the Court of the Revenue Assistant, Rohtak, under the Redemption of Mortgages act, 1913, and deposited the entire mortgage money due in the treasury. Notice obviously went to the mortgagee who resisted the claim on various grounds, including absence of jurisdiction in the Assistant Collector, Rohtak, on the ground that the montage money was more than Rs. 5,000/ -. It appears that on 15-4-1958 the collector, Rohtak, disallowed the application of the mortgagor which the observation that the applicant could, if so advised, seek his remedy in the civil Court. Having failed to get redemption in the office of the Collector, the mortgagor instituted the present suit on 17-5-1958 for possession by redemption of 10 bighas and 8 biswas pukhta of agricultural land on payment of Rs. 6,000/ -.

(3.) THE mortgagee resisted this suit as well, claiming full proprietary title in himself on the ground that the mortgagor had sold the equity of redemption to him in lieu of a loan of Rs. 1,800/- which he had taken and on which a sum of Rs. 185/- was also due as interest. In addition to this peal, compensation for improvements to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- was also claimed. It was further pleaded that the mortgagee had cultivated sugar-cane crop and melons on the land in dispute and, therefore, till these crops were harvested he was entitled to remain in possession. The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence led in the case, repelled all the contentions raised by the defendant and passed a decree for possession by way of redemption as stated above.