HARNARAIN Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by one of the defendants against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur in a redemption suit, The plaintiff Moolchand filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage of a house situated in the town of Bayana near Gilhoria well. It was alleged that the said property was mortgaged by Jawahar the ancestor of the defencants Nos. 6 to 19 in favour of Sunsiram and Johri predecessor in interest of defendant No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred to as the first mortgagees ). THIS mortgaged was with possession and for a sum of Rs. 314/ -, Afterwards the property was mortgaged as per mortgage deed dated the 1st of May, 1899 in favour of the defendant No. 3 Chiranji Lal and Thakuria fathers of defendants Nos. 4 and 5, Gurraj and Pyareylal respectively, hereinafter to be known as the second mortgagees), with possession. The second mortgagees by sale deed dated the 8th of September, 1937, sold their mortgagee rights to Harnarain, defendant No. 1. It was further alleged that Mst. Phondi defendant No. 2 successor in interest of the first mortgagees redeemed this property in favour of Shyamlal defendant No. 6, the successor in interest of the original mortgagees defendant No. 6 transferred this property in favour of the plaintiff by the sale -deed dated the 4th of June, 1946. The plaintiff claimed that he was consequently, the respresentative of the mortgagors and was entitled to redeem the property from the defendant No. 1.

(2.) THE only contesting defendant in this case was Harnarain, defendant No. 1. It was admitted that the property in dispute was mortgaged by Jawahar to Ghasiram Manulal. It was further admitted that Sunsiram and Johri were the successor in interest of Manu Lal. It was however, denied that defendant Nos. 6 to 15 were the desecdants of Jawahar. It was further denied that Mst. Phondi defendant No. 2 was the successor in interest of Sunsiram and Johri. It was admitted that Sunsiram and Johri had mortgaged the property in dispute to Ghasiram and Thakuria, and it was added that Ghasiram or any of his successors in interest did not join in this mortgage. It was further admitted that the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 were the successors in interest of Chuniram and Thakuria and that they had executed a sale deed of their mortgagee rights in favour of Harnarain and had put him in possession thereof. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 6 was neither the first mortgagee of the property in dispute nor had any connection therewith. THE allegations about the redemption of the property in favour of Shyamlal were denied and it was stated that Shyamlal did not get any right in the property by virtue of any such ikrarnama as alleged by the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that Girraj had left a son who was in existence at the time of the execution of the alleged ikrarnama Ex. 8 and was still alive. Mst. Phondi had therefare, no rights in the presences of the son to redeem the property or execute any ikrarnama in respect thereof in favour of Shyamlal. Bar of limitation was also pleaded and the jurisdiction of the court was also questioned.