BHAIJI SHAMRAO DAREKAR Vs. HAJIMIYA MAHAMAD AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the facts material to be known are that a mortgage was jointly effected by Sakhling and Anapurnabai. Whether these two persons were joint mortgagors, or tenants-in-common, does not appear and, in my opinion, is now immaterial.

(2.) Subsequently Anapurnabai redeemed alone, without the knowledge of Sakhling. This was in 1882. On the same day she re-mortgaged without the knowledge of Sakhling to the defendants. The actual physical possession was not changed. The old mortgagees are found to have remained in possession as before under the new mortgage, but whether as mortgagees of the previous mortgage or after having attorned to the new mortgagees does not appear.

(3.) The plaintiff sues as the assignee of the heirs of Sakhling to redeem.