SIDDESHWAR MARTAND HAGRE Vs. GANPATRO BHAURAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a redemption suit filed by the plaintiffs, . and after a somewhat varied career the suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge who directed the plaintiffs to recover possession of the property in suit, except Part. No. 86, Survey No. 79, without paying anything to defendant No. 1. That one land referred to was omitted from the order because, in execution of a money decree against the mortgagors, their equity of redemption in that property was sold.

(2.) The Appellate Judge allowed the plaintiffs to get possession of that Survey Number as well, following the decision in Martand V/s. Dhondo 22 B 624 : Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 998.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 has appealed, and the respondents Pleader rightly admitted that the decision in Khiarajmal V/s. Daim 32 C. 296 : 7 Bom. L.R. 1 : 9 C.W.N. 201 : 2 A.L.J. 71 : 1 C.L.J. 584 : 32 I.A. 23 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 734 (P.C.) governs the case, and the case of Martand V/s. Dhondo 22 B 624 : Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 998 cannot now be considered as an authority, as was pointed out in Govindrao V/s. Waman S.A. No. 474 of 1909 in this Court.