MANU PANDE Vs. SUKHLALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintill's from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below in suit brought by them for redemption. Shortly put, the facts of the case, omitting those not relevant now, are these. Basmato Kuer, the widow of Parsuram Pandey, executed in favour of the defendant a registered usufructuary mortgage bond dated 16-7-1923 in respect of 2 bighas 6 kathas 12 dhurs of land under khata No. 526 situate in village Chainpore Mubarakpore. On the death of Basmato Kuer, plaintiff, claiming to be the reversionary heir of Parsu- ram Pandey, sold the equity of redemption to plaintiff 2 by a registered deed of sale dated 19-7-1945. On 24-7-1948 both the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for redemption of the aforesaid usufructuary mortgage.

(2.) The defence in the main was that plaintiff 1 was not the next reversioner of the estate of Parsuram Pandey and that the usufructuary mortgage bond was not subsisting, but that it had already been redeemed by the daughters of Basmato Kuer, namely, Chaita and Phuljharo, by executing in favour of the mortgagee defendant another usufructuary mortgage bond dated 26-5-1931 in respect of a larger area including the mortgaged property.

(3.) The suit was decreed on 6-5-1949 but on appeal by the defendants there was a remand by the lower appellate Court on 29-9-1951. After remand the learned Munsif held that the plaintiffs were not immediate rever-sioners of Parsuram Pandey and dismissed the suit on 5-4-1952.