PARSOTIM THAKUR Vs. LAL MOHAR THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to redeem a series of usufructuary mortgages upon certain property, which is described as a separated one anna patti in a moiety of Mouza Rajapur in the Shahabad District. The other pattis are referred to incidentally in the case, but they are no part of the subject matter of the appeal. The mortgages in question were executed on different dates between 13 July 1883, and 23 October 1914, by various members of a joint family now represented by appellants 6 and 7 Ram Prasad and Radha Prasad, in favour of the managing members of the respondents' family. A question was raised at the trial of the suit as to one Sita, another member of the mortgagors' family, who was said to have disappeared and was not joined as a party, but this has no bearing on the matter at issue in the present appeal. The mortgages all provided for redemption on the full moon day of Jeth in any year on repayment of the principal moneys without interest. The respondents were in possession at the date of suit. The first five appellants claimed as transferees of the equity of redemption from appellants 6 and 7 under two permanent leases dated respectively 19 June 1921 and 20 November 1921 which were put in evidence and proved.

(2.) In the suit as originally framed the mortgagors were joined as co-defendants, with the first three respondents as representing the mortgagees, on the allegation that they (the mortgagors) had refused to join in suing, but they were subsequently made co-plaintiffs with the other appellants on their own application. The remaining respondents are minor members of the family of the mortgagees and were subsequently added as defendants.

(3.) The suit was decreed by the first Court hut this decree was reversed on appeal and the suit was dismissed. The respondents have not appeared before the Board, and the appeal has been heard ex parte, but the facts have been placed before their Lordships very fully by counsel for the appellants, and the judgments of both Courts have been discussed at length.