SATYANARAIN RAI Vs. NATHUNI SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against the judgment of a learned Judgde of this Court, in two second appeals. The Letters Patent Appeals 21 and, 22 arise out of Second Appeal No. 544 of 1969. That Second Appeal had been filed by defendant 1 of Title Suit No. 82 of 1963, which had been filled by plaintiff-respondent 1 for redemption of three mortgage bonds (Exts. 2/a, 2/b and 2/c). The suit was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal filed by the plaintiff, the suit was decreed in respect of all the three mortgage bonds. Against that, the aforesaid second appeal was filed by defendant No. 1. The learned Judge of this Court on a consideration of the materials came to the conclusion that the court of appeal below has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for redemption in respect of two mortgage bonds, i.e., Exts. 2/a and 2/c. He was, however, of the opinion that the suit for redemption of the plaintiff in respect of the third mortgage bond, i.e., Ext. 2/b, cannot be decreed and the suit has to be dismissed to that extent. Being aggrieved by that judgment, the plaintiff has filed Letters Patent Appeal 21 of 1972 and defendent 1 has filed Letters Patent Appeal 22 of 1972. Another title suit had been filed by the same plaintiff which was numbered as Title Suit No. 78 of 1963 for redemption of yet another mortgage bond which was marked as Ext. 2 in that suit. That suit was also dismissed by the trial court, but on appeal being filed, on behalf of the plaintiff, it was decreed. Defendants filed a second appeal, which was numbered as second appeal 631 of 1969. That second appeal was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Letters Patent Appeal 20 of 1972 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff against the said judgment.

(2.) As parties are common and common questions of law and fact are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) Letters Patent Appeal 22 of 1972 was heard as the leading case. The counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant submitted that the learned Judge erred in holding that the mortgage created by the two bonds, Exts. 2/a and 2/c, subsists and a suit for redemption in respect of those mortgages can be decreed. According to the learned counsel, the equity of the redemption in respect of those two mortgages was long extinguished.