BASANTI LAL Vs. GOKUL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgement and decree passed by District Judge, Jhalawar dated 6.11.1987, whereby he affirmed the judgement and decree of the Munsif Magistrate, Bhawanimandi dated 22.9.1979.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Baghmal son of Hazari Lal and brother of appellant Basanti Lal, since substituted by his legal representatives, mortgaged an immovable property with Kalu Ram on 3.4.1912 by two separate registered mortgaged deeds for Rs.300/- and Rs.125/- respectively. The mortgage was accompanied by possession of the property. Moti Lal and Kanhaiya Lal, sons of Kalu Ram sub-mortgaged the above property along with some other property belonging to Bheru Lal and Manna Lal, for Rs.845/- in favour of Nathu Lal and Ram Chandra, sons of Laxmi Narayan by registered mortgaged deed vide sub-mortgage deed dated 18.6.1940. Therein, they admitted the factum of mortgage of this property with them. Kesar Bai widow of Baghmal and Basanti Lal sons of Hazari Lal filed suit for redemption of the property before the Munsif Court Bhawani Mandi on 20.11.1967. Description of the property was given in para 2 of the plaint, which was a constructed house having a chowk in the middle and an open land adjoining thereto. It was pleaded that Baghmal and Basanti Lal were sons of Hazari Lal and Chunni Lal was their grandfather. Baghmal has died but during his life time, the two brothers were jointly member of Hindu Undivided Family and Baghmal was its head and they had joint properties. Baghmal is survived by his widow. On defendants' side Nathu Lal and Ram Chandra have also died and they are now represented by their legal heirs. The plaintiffs could not redeem the disputed property earlier because of their poor financial condition.

(3.) The plaintiffs approached Chand Mal, Basanti Lal, Ballabh and Gokul Das for redemption of said property but they kept avoiding and finally plaintiffs served upon the defendants, legal notice through their advocate, which was not replied and therefore plaintiffs have filed the suit for redemption. The present defendants have came in possession of the said property by way of sub mortgage deed dated 18.6.1940 in which it has been acknowledged that this property was originally mortgaged in favour of Moti Lal and Kanhaiya Lal, who have further mortgaged the same in favour of Nathu Lal and Ram Chandra Jaju. The factum of mortgage deed dated 3.4.1912 has been acknowledged and admitted in the sub-mortgage deed dated 18.6.1940 on the basis of which the defendants came in possession of the disputed property. The suit was thus within limitation and prayer was made for its redemption.