BABU RAM Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendant 2 arising out of a suit brought on the basis of a registered deed dated 25 October 1921, executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Under this deed a grove and the sugarcane crops on 10 bighas of land were hypothecated. Defendant 2 was impleaded on the ground that he had taken possession of the crops and crushed them. In the plaint the plaintiff sought no relief against the grove of the mortgagor but stated that a separate suit would be filed later if necessary.

(2.) Defendant 2 denied the allegations of the plaintiff in general but the specific pleas taken by him were that he had not crushed the crops at all and that he was not in law liable to the plaintiff's claim.

(3.) The Court of first instance framed three issues: (1) as to the execution of the bond in suit, (2) as to whether sugarcane crops were pressed at the pressing machine of defendant 2s, and (3) as to the effect of the release of the grove by the plaintiff. It found the execution proved but found that it was not established that the sugarcane crops had been pressed at the appellant's pressing machine. It, therefore, considered it unnecessary to decide the issue 3 and decreed the claim as against defendant 1 only and exempted defendant 2. On appeal the learned District Judge has granted the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 200 against defendant 2 also.