THAKUR PRASAD SINGH Vs. RAGHUBAR PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Monghyr dismissing a suit for redemption of a mortgage.

(2.) The plaintiffs-appellants are father and son and members of a joint Mitakshara family. The mortgage sought to be redeemed was created by a 'sadhawa patawa' bond executed by Bhagwat Prasad Singh deceased, lather of the plaintiff No. 1 Thakur Prasad Singh, both as karta of the joint Mitakshara family consisting of himself and his son, and as guardian of his son. By this deed, the mortgagors hypothecated four items of proprietary interest (1) 3 annas and odd share in mauza Azizpur Piparia, touzi No. 838, (2) 16 annas khas patti in Azizpur Piparia, tauzi No. 840, (3) 8 annas out of 16 annas in respect of 4 annas patti in mauza Jagdishpur Saiyadpur, touzi No. 987, and (4) 8 annas out of 16 annas in respect of 4 annas patti in Jagdishpur, touzi No. 8994, to secure an amount of Rs. 17,000/- for the period 1st Asin 1336 to 30th Bhado 1351 Fasli. The property was to remain in the possession of the mortgagee Dalip Narain Singh, defendant No. 1 since deceased, who would be responsible for the payment of Government revenue and cess. The income of the property, after making a certain allowance for the cost of collection, was to be applied first to the payment of the interest payable under the 'sadhawa patawa' deed and the balance, if any, towards the satisfaction of the principal amount of the said mortgage-debt. There was to be a yearly rendering of accounts. If within the term of the mortgage the debt was not satisfied the sadhawa patawa was to continue till the date of payment of the entire mortgage dues.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed the suit on the basis that their interest was unaffected by the execution sales and that the mortgage dues were fully satisfied by the usufruct of the mortgaged property. They pleaded: "The plaintiffs have come to know that defendant No. 1 instituted a rent suit in respect of the said land against the family of the plaintiffs and obtained a decree fraudulently and surreptitiously and thereafter executing the said decree by taking surreptitious steps purchased all the jot lands and the properties let out in sadhawa patawa for a meagre amount of Rs. 300. The plaintiffs beg to submit that the said decree was a money decree. The plaintiffs have come to know that defendant No. 1 had never obtained permission from the Court for purchasing at the auction-sale. As the said decree was in respect of the subject-matter of the sadhawa patawa deed, hence the purchase by defendant No. 1 at auction sale is by all means illegal and ineffective. The plaintiffs beg to submit that the defendants are up till now in possession and occupation of the properties let out in sadhawa patawa as sadhawa patawadar. The plaintiffs have by all means the right to re-deem the rehan,