MT BETI BAI Vs. TANTYA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Mt. Beti Bai, defendant 1, arising out of a suit for redemption. It appears that in 1895, a mortgage was made by five persons for a sum of Rs. 96 in favour of Bhola whose representatives are the appellant Mt. Beti Bai and defendant 2, who is made a pro forma respondent. The plaintiff 1 is one of the mortgagors. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 and defendants 3 to 6, are the representatives of the other four mortgagors.

(2.) In 1905 three of the mortgagors, excluding the plaintiff 1 Tantya Singh and Mt. Kanji, applied under Section 6, Bundelkhand Encumbered Estates Act, requesting that the provisions of the Act be applied to them. In the written statement which they were required to submit under Section 8 they did not mention this mortgage-debt at all. It is also noteworthy that the other two mortgagors did not make any application under the Act. The order of the Judge under the Act was passed in July 1905.

(3.) It is unnecessary to decide in this case whether only such persons who are mentioned as creditors in the statement filed under Section 8 are deemed to be claimants under Section 11 and to them only Section 12 applies, or whether Section 12 applies to all creditors, because the Courts have assumed it to be so and the counsel for both the parties admit before me that so far as the three applicants are concerned the mortgage debt as against them was in fact discharged. It is necessary only to note that no steps were taken under Section 18 of the Act for the ejectment of the mortgagees.