RATANLAL Vs. KISHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for redemption. The appellant sued the respondents On 11th March, 1947, lor redemption of certain property situat-ed in the town of Partapgarh, and described in the plaint, on the allegations that their father Pannalal mortgaged the property with the respondents on llth June 1920 for securing a loan of Rs. 151/- but that the defendants had declined to redeem the mortgage. The respondents pleaded that a further charge was created by Pannalal on 14th- December 1922 for a sum of Rs. 95/- and thereafter on 26th December 1923, Pannalal agreed to sell the house to the mortgagees for a sum of Rs. 455/-, & that after adjusting the loan and the interest thereon he took some cash and agreed to take the balance on executing a registered deed of sale four days later. It was further pleaded that after the death of Pannalal, a deed was executed by one Punamchand as guardian of the plaintiffs, who were then minors, on 11th January 1924. The trial Court held that the sale-deed of 11th January was by a person who was not competent to execute the deed of transfer. The Court did not rely on the agreement of sale dated 26th December 1923 and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs subject to payment of Rs 276/-. On appeal by the defendants, the learned District Judge held that the agreement of 26th December 1923, allowed the defendants the benefit of the doctrine of partperformance, and dismissed the suit.

(2.) In this second appeal, it was argued that it was necessary under the terms of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act that possession should have been delivered to the mortgagees under the deed, and reliance was placed on the following words occurring in the section.

(3.) The lower Court has taken a correct view of the case. Therefore, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.