VED PARKASH Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VED Parkash Defendant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated December 16, 1973 of the District Judge Hoshiarpur, by which his first appeal was dismissed and the decision of the trial Court was affirmed.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the Plaintiff Respondent Herbars Lal mortgaged the house in dispute for Rs. 1,400/ - in favour of the Defendant -appellant Ved Parkash. A suit for redemption of the mortgage was filed by Harbans Lal and a preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court for redemption of the house on payment of the mortgage amount of Rs. 1,400/ - as well as sum of Rs. 1,200/ - spent by the mortgagee on making improvements in the house. This decision was affirmed by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) IN the mortgage deed there is no mention of the Appellant's lessee rights. On the contrary it is mentioned therein that possession was delivered to the Appellant as a mortgagee in the wake of the transaction of mortgage There is also a recital in the deed that it would be the duty of the mortgagor to effect repairs in the mortgaged property. Thus, recitals in the mortgage deed indicate that there was surrender of tenancy, and the Appellant was only a mortgagee. Had it not been so it would have been mentioned in the deed that the Appellant had been delivered possession of the house as a mortgages. It is held by the Supreme Court in Shah Mathuradas and Company v. Nagappa Shankarappa Malqa and Ors. : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1565, that no particular form of words in the mortgage deed is essential to make a valid surrender of a tenancy rights. The surrender may be oral. The following observations in this judgment are extremely relevant on the point of surrender: