CHUHA Vs. BHAG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen out of a suit filed by Bhag Singh and others against Chuha defendant for redemption of land measuring 23 bighas 16 biswas, as detailed out in the head note of the plaint. The facts may briefly be stated as follows :

(2.) SUDAMA and Sadhu, who were own brothers, created a usufructuary mortgage of 71 bighas of their land for Rs. 100 in favour of Chuha, Gangu & Gokal in the month of Baisakh 1960 BK. On the death of Sudama, Sadhu inherited his entire estate and he became the sole mortgagor. Subsequently Sadhu also died leaving behind his three sons, Sarvshri Gobind, Bohra and Samandu. In the meanwhile Gangu and Gokal also died, it appears without issues and their succession also devolved on Chuha. Thus he also became the sole mortgagee. Gobind and Bohra sold the equity of redemption in res peat of their 2/3rd share in favour of Achharu and Nand Lal, the sons of Chuha on 21 1 1958. The latter two redeemed their 2/3rd share. Thus Chuha was only a mortgagee with respect to 1/3rd share measuring 23 bighas 16 biswas. Samandu, whose 1/3rd share remained In mortgage died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his heirs; they, therefore, brought a suit for redemption of the land without payment of any mortgage money, as, according to them it was a usufructuary mortgage and the mortgagees had been taking the fruit of the land since 1960 BK. It was, therefore, contended that Chuha defendant was not entitled to recover more than double the money under the provisions of Debt Reduction Act and on that ground they prayed for a decree for redemption without payment of any money.

(3.) IT was found by the trial Court that Sadhu and Sudama had mortgaged the suit land with possession with Gangu and Chuha in Baisakh 1960 BK, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the suit land without any payment; that the H. P. Debt Reduction Act was applicable to Bilaspur and that the suit was governed by its provisions; that the suit was within time; that Samandu and his brothers had entered into an agreement with Chuha, but Samandu did not fail to carry out his part of the agreement and that the agreement did not operate as a clog on redemption. In view of these findings on the issues, the suit was decreed. Against this judgment and decree the defendant went in appeal to the District Judge.