NILKANTH BALVANT NATU Vs. SHRI VIDYASHANKAR BHARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to recover by sale or foreclosure Rs. 5,00,001 and interest charged upon certain immoveable properties in Belgaum, Kolhapur, Sawantwadi, Kurundwad and Satara. The suit was filed in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Satara against the mortgagors or their representatives to enforce the alleged rights of the mortgagee. Certain issues were taken up at the trial as preliminary issues, and from the decision of the Subordinate Judge on those issues an appeal was filed to the High Court (being F.A. No. 39 of 1913, the suit being No. 604 of 1910 of the Satara Court). On appeal the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit continued in the Subordinate Judge's Court.

(2.) It was contended by the defendants that the mortgaged property was Devasthan and Saranjam, and not liable to be mortgaged. The Judge decided this issue in plaintiffs favour and the decision on the fourth issue would necessarily follow also in their favour. The eleventh issue was whether the claim for possession of any and which of the mortgaged properties was in time. The learned Judge held that the claim for possession of the properties in the Kolhapur State only was in time. On the twelfth issue he held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sell or to foreclose, and he passed a decree on accounts being taken to the following effect:-- The defendants or any one of them should pay Rs. 3,31,000-0-8and plaintiffs costs in proportion within six months from the date of the decree. In default the plaintiffs wore to recover possession of the villages in the Kolhapur State only. The claim as to other villages in suit was rejected. The learned Judge declined to allow any further interest from the date of suit until the date of the decree or the date of realization,

(3.) The plaintiffs have appealed. Three points have been argued before us:-- 1. Whether the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to an order for sale? 2. Whether plaintiffs were not entitled to possession of all the mortgaged properties? 3. Whether the learned Judge's decision on the question of interest was wrong?