SONTYANAGOPALA DASU (DEAD) Vs. INAPATALUPULA RAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 4 in the suit which was brought by the plaintiffs on the footing of two I: usufructuary mortgages, Exs. A and B, in which the father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff and-the father of the 2nd plaintiff were the mortgagors and the 1st defendant was the mortgagee. The plaintiffs claiir. that the mortgage debt having been completely discharged they are entitled to the possession of the mortgaged lands by ejection ofithe defendants. They also claim an account.

(2.) The mortgage deeds are dated respectively 27th September 1892 and 28th April 1893. The written statement filed by the defendants admit that the father-in- law of the 1st plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and certain minors became indebted up to 13th March 1887 in the sum of Rs. 560 in respect of the plaint mentioned registered deeds of mortgage with possession and they executed a settlement of account. They also file an account and plead that the sum of Rs. 950 odd is still due to them and that the plaintiffs cannot redeem without paying this sum.

(3.) The issues, as originally settled, were for accounts and on the question of non- joinder of certain alleged necessary parties. But on remand the District Munsif framed an additional issue which is the point taken in the second appeal before us. The issue runs as follows: Are the suit mortgages void on account of non- enfranchisement and, if so, is the plaintiff s suit in time and the claim for possession of the lands not barred?" Both the lower courts have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem.