PARASHRAM YESHVANTSETH ALWE Vs. LAKSHMIBAI BABAJI SAMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal is whether the permanent leases of part of the land by the mortgagor's representative to the mortgagee's representative subsequent to the date of the mortgage are valid.

(2.) In 1897, the plaintiff's father Govind mortgaged certain property to Yeshwant, the father of defendants Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The mortgagor . Govind died leaving Annapurnabai his widow, two sons Dattatraya and Tukaram, and a daughter the present plaintiff. In 1901 Dattatraya died and Tukaram was a lunatic. In 1902, Annapurnabai, as the guardian of her lunatic son Tukaram, passed a second mortgage in favour of defendant No. 1; and in 1907 passed two permanent leases, one in favour of defendant No. 1, Exhibit 55, and another in favour of defend-No. 2, Exhibit 56. Tukaram died and the plaintiff as the heir of Tukaram brought a suit for redemption of the mortgage, contending that the leases passed by Annapurnabai in the year 1907 were not binding on her.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the leases were not binding, as the transactions were not fair and the rent reserved was almost nil. On appeal, the learned First Class Subordinate Judge, A.P., held that the leases were granted for a very lowrent, and that both the leases were unfair transactions, not at all beneficial to the lessor, and that the leases were not binding on the plaintiff.