HARI KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. SHYAMA KANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the plaintiffs in the suit, is against the decree of 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, dated 27th March, 1985, whereby the plaintiffs' appeal against the decree of the Munsif dismissing the suit for redemption of usufructuary mortgage-bond dated 6-5-1914 and for restoration of possession of entire property described in Schedule- A of the plaint was affirmed.

(2.) The relevant facts stated as follows. Bansi Ram, Murai Ram and Ayodhya Ram were the owners of 8 decimals of land of plot No. 2827 situated at Barbigha. On 8-1-1914, they executed a mortgage-bond to Chetan Ram and put him in possession. Chetan Ram transferred the mortgage deed to Amirchand Ram by registered'deed. Amirchand Ram also transferred his mortgage deed to Shiva Prasad Lal. The latter transferred the mortgage deed to Dhaka Ram who was the ancestor'of the defendants. Dhaka Ram died about 30 years ago from the date of institution leaving behind his sons Harangi Ram, Damodar Ram, Ram Jiwan Ram. Ramandan Ram and Nand Kishore Ram and they became usufructuary mortgagees, in respect of the land in question.

(3.) Three brothers sold the suit property with encumbrance to Naurangi Ram, Ajodhya Ram and Lakhan Ram. These brothers were separate. The purchasers did not redeem the mortgage-bond dated 6-1-1914. Lakhan Ram sold his interest in the mortgage property to his cousins Naurangi Ram and Ajodhya Ram, who became the owners of half and half. They had purchased the property in representative capacity of their family. Ayodhya Ram had purchased on behalf of himself and his brother Haro Ram, Bihari Ram and Gajadhar Ram. After the death of Naurangi Ram, his heirs sold their interest to the plaintiffs by registered deed of sale in the year 1964. Out of remaining 6 annas share the plaintiffs had already purchased 6 annas share in the same year but registration was done only with regard to 4 annas share and the suit is pending for specific performance of 2 annas shares. Plaintiffs tendered the full mortgage money to the defendants but they have not allowed the redemption of mortgage. Hence the suit.