ULFAT RAI Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by the plaintiff in a redemption suit. The suit was by the plaintiff to redeem a usufructuary mortgage of the 22 November, 1884 for Rs. 1,500, and for recovery of surplus profits. There was another simple mortgage of the same date which was to be paid along with the usufructuary mortgage. These mortgages were in favour of one Daulat Ram. He sold his lights as mortgagee to Srikishen Das and Tika on the 10 of April 1885. On the 20 of June 1912 the mortgagors sold the mortgaged property to Tika Ram. The result was that Tika Ram became the sole owner of half the mortgaged property and had the equity of redemption only in the other half.

(2.) The plaintiff, who is the son of Tika Ram, sues to redeem half the mortgage on payment of half the amount due under the usufructuary mortgage only, but does not want to pay the second mortgage which was contracted to be paid along with the usufructuary mortgage, The defendants pleaded in defense that the plaintiff was bound to pay the amount due on the second mortgage also and that there had been a deficiency in the interest due on the first mortgage which the plaintiff was also liable to pay before he could get a decree for redemption.

(3.) The First Court held that the principal mortgage-money was due on the first mortgage but that there had been no deficiency in interest and that, in any case, interest could not be recovered for more than 12 years. On the second mortgage, which was a simple mortgage, the Court held that the plaintiff was bound to redeem it along with the usufructuary mortgage, Bath the parties appealed. The plaintiff's appeal was about his non-liability to pay the second mortgage. The defendants in their appeal claimed the deficiency in interest up to the time of redemption. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that the simple mortgage was also to be paid along with the usufructuary mortgage, and decreed that of the defendants, holding that the defendants were entitled to recover the deficiency in interest for the whole period of the mortgage and not for two years only as decreed by the First Court. Hence these two appeals by the plaintiff.