SONTYANA GOPALA DASEE (DEAD) Vs. INAPUTALAPULA RAMI

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The mortgage-deeds are dated respectively 27 September 1892 and 23 April 1833. The written statement filed by the defendants admits that the father-in-law of the first plaintiff, the second defendant and certain minore became indebted up to 13 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 and 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 nonjoinder 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. That issue runs as follows "Are the suit mortgages void on account of non-enfranchisement, and, if so, is the plaintiffs 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.