(1.) THE two questions referred to the Full Bench are-1. Whether it is open to the legal representatives of a debtor to invoke the help of section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act in a suit for possession by redemption? 2. Whether the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, as amended in the Punjab, would govern a suit for redemption of mortgage executed before the commencement of the Act?
(2.) THE grandfather of the plaintiffs, Ladhia, created three mortgages between July 20, 1886, and May 21, 1897, for a total consideration of Rs. 6,400/- by the deeds Exhibits P. 1 to 3 in favour of Ramji Dass, father of defendants Nos. 1 to 4, in respect of some agricultural land, one nauhra and two houses. According to the conditions of the mortgages, the mortgagee was to be in possession of the mortgaged properties and to appropriate the rents and profits towards interest on the mortgages, the rate of interest having been specified in the mortgages, and in default of payment of interest a provision having been made for charging compound interest at considerable higher rate. The mortgagee was not given possession of a part of the mortgaged property, which was already in the possession of one Shugan Chand under a mortgage. The mortgagee sued for possession of that property. In that suit there was a compromise under which the mortgagee paid Rs. 650/- to clear off the encumbrance in favour of Shugan Chand and the mortgagor contracted to have that amount as mortgage debt on the mortgaged properties. The decree in that suit is of February 28, 1904. So the total mortgage debt comes to Rs. 7,050/ -.
(3.) THE plaintiffs brought a suit for redemption of the mortgaged properties and obtained a decree on March 14, 1914, for possession of the properties by redemption on payment of Rs. 62,293/11/9, with costs amounting to Rs. 326/9/9. There was an appeal against that decree but that failed on November 24, 1919. However, pursuant to that decree the properties were not redeemed by the plaintiffs.