MANGALA Vs. PRABHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVD with the Revenue Appellate Authority's judgment and decree dated 31st December, 1970, the appellant, who was plaintiff in the court of first instance and respondent before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, has on 26-2-1971 filed this appeal under sec. 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

(2.) APPELLANT filed a suit under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with sec. 43 of the Act for fields number 10 and 251 of village Rasaliyawas, Tehsil, Merta, measuring respectively 14 bighas 12 biswas and 25 bighas and 11 biswas and eviction of the respondent-defendant Prabhu Singh. The plaint contained the allegation that the fields, which form the subject matter of suit, were mortgaged with usufruct by the appellant-plaintiff with respondent-defendant for a sum of Rs. 389/- with the stipulation that the plaintiff would not be required to pay the Hasil for the fields. It was further stipulated, in this alleged mortgage according to the plaintiff, that he can at his will redeem the fields by returning the mortgage amount of Rs. 329/- to the defendant who was bound, it is alleged, to return the possession to the plaintiff forthwith. The plaintiff has further said that he delivered the Parcha Lagan of the fields to the defendant at the time of the mortgage. A little before instituting the suit for redemption, the plaintiff notified to the defendant his intention of redeeming the fields and paying the mortgage amount. The defendant allegedly paid no heed and the plaintiff on 3-7-1959, despatched a notice to the defendant by registered post, asking him to accept the mortgage amount and transfer the possession of the fields. Defeadant refused to accept the notice. The plaintiff thereupon filed the suit with the contention that the fields had been mortgaged with usufruct on the conditions mentioned above and that a redemption decree directing the defendant to return the possession of the fields on payment of the mortgage amount by the plaintiff, may be passed.

(3.) IN the case of Junjhar Singh vs. Prithvi Singh reported as 1969 RRD 114, it was held on the basis of the above mentioned case of Hansia vs. Bakhatawarlal (Hansia's case is also reported as 1958 RLW 443) that an unregistered mortgage deed cannot be used in a suit for redemption to prove the mortgage, because it is not a case for collateral purpose.