JANVED SINGH Vs. HUSENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the concurrent decrees of the lower courts whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for redemption of mortgage and delivery of possession was decreed. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent is based on the deed (Ex. P. 1), whereby the land in question was handed over to the defendants-appellants for a period of 10 years to meet the debt of Rs. 2000/- which the plaintiff- respondent, had incurred with the stipulation that the defendant Janvedsingh will cultivate the land for 10 years and will also pay the rent due to the landlord. For a period of 10 years, the plaintiff will have no connection with the land and the debt will be deemed to have been extinguished after the expiry of this period at the rate of Rs. 200/- per year.

(2.) THE defendants-appellant denied the suit and claimed that the fields had been subject to them and not mortgaged as alleged by the plaintiff-respondent. It was, further contended that they had acquired khatedar rights under Sec. 19 of the Rajasthantenancy Act and the plaintiff respondent had no locus standi to evict them. THE entire question then turns on the construction of the document executed at the time of the transfer of the land. While the plaintiff-respondent alleges that it was a mortgage deed, the defendants contend that it was a lease deed.

(3.) APPLYING this criterion to the construction of the document in the present case, it must be held that there was a relationship of creditor and debtor between the parties and the property was given as security for the payment of the amount advanced. The gist of the document does not amount to the letting of the land with a rent reserved but a mortgage of the land which was to be redeemed automatically after the expiry of the stipulated period. Under similar conditions in Vijai Singh vs. Karan See (AIR 1957 Raj. 120) where A advanced Rs. 7000/- to B, the terms of the Baraskati deed executed by B in favour of A were that A would be put in possession of three villages for 10 years and would get his money with interest from the usufruct of those villages for that period, it was held that the Baraskati deed was a mortgage. Similarly, in Karka Somulu vs. Reddy Appalanaidu (AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 507) where from the recital of the document, it was manifest that there was a debt carrying interest and that there was the relationship of creditor and debtor between the parties and the mode of discharge of the debt was indicated, it was held that the document was a mortgage and not a lease.