NAINU Vs. KISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by defendants arises out of a suit for redemption. It is common ground, that the property in question was mortgaged by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, in favour of Sundar, father of the appellants 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Tulsi appellant 5, on 17th Kartak 1992 Sambat, for a sum of Rs. 1400/. Subsequently on 22-9-49, the plaintiffs purchased the equity of redemption from the original mortgagors for a sum of Rs. 4000/-. Consequently the plaintiffs sought a decree for redemption on payment of the sum of Rs. 1400/( original mortgage amount) to the defendants-mortgagees.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendants-mortgagees mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had no right to redeem, since the period prescribed in the mortgage deed (10 years) had expired. They, therefore, contended that their (mortgagees') status had matured into that of owners and consequently the suit was bad. In the alternative, it was contended that, they were further entitled to the costs of the improvements effected by them.

(3.) The Courts below have found, that the right of redemption still existed and the status of the defendants-appellants continued to be that of mortgagees. As regards the alleged improvements, they have found that these were effected during the pendency of the suit, and, consequently, no sum was payable to them (i.e., mortgagees) on that account. In the result, the plaintiffs were granted a decree for redemption on payment of the sum of Rs. 1400/- i.e., the original mortgage amount. Hence, this second appeal by the mortgagees-defendants.