PANDURANG BABU PARAB Vs. MAHADAJI MORESHVAR GOKHALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the mortgagor and the defendant the mortgagee of the plaint property. The mortgage deed is dated the 25 October, 1893, and it is thereby provided that the mortgagor is not entitled to redeem after the 25 October, 1899, without paying interest to the 25th October, 1900.

(2.) On the 12 October, 1899, the plaintiff deposited in Court the Rs. 2,000 then due on the mortgage, but the mortgagee being a minor the appointment Of a guardian ad litem for the purpose of receiving notice of the deposit was necessary. Accordingly-notice was issued to the minor mortgagee's mother, Sundrabai, with a view to obtaining-her consent to be appointed guardian ad totem of her son, and it was made returnable on the 18 of November. On that day Sundrabai appeared and was appointed guardian ad litem. Then a notice was issued to Sundrabai calling on her to show cause why she should not receive the deposited money, and this was made returnable on the 9bh of December. When the matter came on, she refused to accept the money in full discharge of the amount due on the mortgage, inasmuch as it did not include interest subsequent to 25 October, 1899. Thereupon the deposited amount was returned to the plaintiff and this suit was instituted.

(3.) The first Court held the deposit under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act insufficient, and therefore decreed redemption on payment of Rs. 2,171-6-10, ordering that the defendant should recover his costs from the plaintiff. The District Judge on appeal, however, held that the mortgagor had done all that had to be done by him to enable the mortgagee to take the money out of Court, and ordered the plaintiff to pay Rs. 2,000 into Court within six months and redeem the property.