LAWS(PVC)-1930-4-10

HARPAL SINGH Vs. RAM PALTAN SINGH

Decided On April 10, 1930
HARPAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
RAM PALTAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal has arisen embraces two shares--a two pies share and a three pies share. We are concerned only with the two pies share in this appeal. The history behind the two pies share is as follows: It was owned by one Ram Narain Singh. On his death, he was succeeded by Musammat Sukhrani. She made a usufructuary mortgage by conditional sale on the 13 of July, 1916, for a sum of nearly Rs. 200 in favour of Harpal Singh, the appellant before us. Two persons, the present respondent Ram Paltan Singh and another who were related to Ram Narain Singh as agnates, brought a suit to obtain a declaration that the mortgage of 1916 made by Musammat Sukhrani was not for legal necessity and was not binding on the reversioners for the time being. In the relief, he wever, it appears, they said that the deed would not be binding on the plaintiffs. The result of the suit was that the learned Munsif before whom the case was, found that the mortgage was supported by legal necessity. There being no dispute that the present respondent and the other man who was the co-plaintiff with Ram Paltan were related to Ram Narain as alleged, and there being no dispute as to their being presumptive reversioners to the estate, the learned Munsif made a decree in the following terms: I herewith declare that the plaintiffs will succeed to the property in dispute after the death of Musammat Sukhrani and that the mortgage- deed registered on 13 July, 1916, is binding on them, for it was executed for legal necessity.

(2.) After the suit was decided, Harpal, after the expiry of the term of mortgage, brought a suit for foreclosure against Musammat Sukhrani, Musammat Sukhrani confessed judgment and a preliminary decree for foreclosure was passed. Then came a final decree in favour of Harpal and Harapal was put in possession of the property. Musammat Sukhrani died and thereupon one of the two plaintiffs of the suit of lal4, Ram Paltan Singh, with another person to whom Ram Paltan assigned a part of the property in suit, brought the suit out of which the present proceedings have arisen for redemption of the two pies share against Harpal Singh. Harpal Singh's case was that the mortgage did not any longer exist, it having been foreclosed and there could be no decree for redemption.

(3.) The suit failed in the Court of the Munsif and the Subordinate Judge on appeal, but it succeeded in second appeal. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that the respondent Ram Paltan's right to the property had been declared by the suit of 1917 and, therefore, Ram Paltan was in a position to redeem the property.