BUTCHIRAJU Vs. RAMALINGAMURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE do not think that there was any mortgage of the land. By the contract between the parties the property was to be enjoyed by the third defendant as absolute owner if the now deceased father of the 1 and 2nd defendants through whom the plaintiffs claim failed to pay the money by the 24 March ? 1887. Though the parties agreed that no further sale-deed was necessary it may be that in order to comply with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act a further sale deed should have been, executed after the 24 March 1887 in order to complet eathe third defendant's title. It is not shown that at the date of the suit a right to obtain such an instrument has become bawed. However this may be, the suit being based, entirely On an alleged mortgage the suit must fail, as there is in fact no mortgage.

(2.) WE dismiss the second appeal with costs.