PARAMJOTA DEVI Vs. SHAMSUL ZOHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 25-4-1989 passed by Sri P. N. Shukla, 2nd Addl. District Judge, Siwan in Title Appeal No. 141 of 1979/19 of 1987 thereby the learned Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 6-8-1978 passed by 1st Addl. Munsif, Siwan in Title Suit No. 379 of 1969.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants who were plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit filed the case against the defendant / respondent 1st set for redemption of mortgage dated 4-10-1917 executed by recorded tenant Karia Dusadh in respect of lands measuring 4 bighas 15 kathas and 4 dhurs, detailed at foot of the plaint, for Rs. 600/- in favour of Sk. Wajid Ali, ancestor of defendant 1st set. According to their case, Karia Dusadh died issueless leaving behind his nephew Bisheshwar Dusadh, as his only heir. Bisheshwar Dusadh executed a registered sale deed dated 30-9-1920 in respect of the aforesaid mortgaged land for Rs. 825/-in favour of mother of the plaintiffs and one Nezamat Ali, father of defendant 2nd set. In that very sale deed, the amount of aforesaid zarpeshgi was set off and kept as 'amanat'. The plaintiff - appellants being co - mortgagor filed the suit for redemption of entire mortgage properties as other mortgagor, defendant 2nd set, did not agree to join.

(3.) ONE Sk. Ishaque and Md. Idris filed intervenor petition in the suit and accordingly vide order dated 2-2-1978, they were added as intervenor / Defendant Nos. 12 and 13. Respondent Nos. 18 to 30 are heirs of intervenor / Defendant Nos. 12 and 13. They separately filed written statement and contested the suit. Their case, inter alia, was that Sk. Nezamat Ali, the co - purchaser of the suit land, died leaving behind his widow Most. Bakridan and minor sons. Most. Bakridan as herself and guardian of her minor sons sold their share in the land under redemption through registered sale deed dated 19-5-1930 in favour of defendant No. 12 and grand father of defendant No. 13 and put them in possession through mortgagee. She also set off the amount of mortgage of ancestor of defendant 1st set. Later on they redeemed the entire mortgage as father of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 was not ready for piecemeal redemption. The mortgagee on receipt of the entire mortgage amount made endorsement to that effect on back of the mortgage deed and handed over the same to intervenor defendants and put them in possession over entire land. Now the defendants 1st set have no interest in the suit land nor are they necessary party. The mortgage is now not subsisting and hence the suit for redemption is not maintainable.