MATTAPALLI RAJU Vs. CHALLA VENKATA RAGHAVAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been brought from decrees passed by the Court of the Subordinatejudge of Cocanada in two suits, one for redemption and the other for ejectment. The suits were tried and decided separately but the appeals have been heard together as they arise out of the same mortgages and lease. As the parties are differently arrayed in the suits, it will be convenient to refer to them as the mortgagor, the mortgagees and the lessees.

(2.) On the 2nd January, 1914, the mortgagor acting for himself and as the guardian of his undivided minor son granted a mortgage of 51 20 acres of inam lands in Veera varamj East Godavari District (hereinafter called the suit lands) along with certain other lads to secure a sum of Rs. 30,00a lent by the mortgagees. The mortgage was nonsossessory in respect of the suit lands and possessory in respect of the other lands to which no further reference need be made as they we re sold with the consent of the mortgagees to satisfy the debt in part. On the 27 November, 1915, he executed another mortgage with possession of the suit lands for Rs. 4,000, but as the lands were in the occupation of the lessees under a lease for 15 years from Fasli 1320 to Fasli 1334 (1910-11 to 1924-25) at an annual rent of Rs. 1,000 the mortgagees were to receive the rents from the lessees and to take possession of the lands on the expiry of the lease. There was a further mortgage on the 31 July, 191(1, of the suit lands with two additional properties one of which called the Chattram Peradu land with a house thereon was also placed in the possession of the mortgagees. This bond which was also for Rs. 4,000 provided inter alia that on the expiry of the lease at the end of Fasli 1334 30 June, 1925.) the mortgagees should take the suit lands on cowle for an annual rent of Rs. 4,000 which, after the payment of revenue and taxes payable in respect of the lands, should be applied first in reduction of the balance due under the mortgage of 1915, next in discharge of the principal and interest of this bond and thereafter towards the interest due under the first mortgage of 1914. The mortgagees were, however, to relinquish the lands irrespective of the terms of the cowle, whenever the mortgagor paid the amounts due under all the mortgages.

(3.) As provided in the bond of 1915, the lessees paid the rents to the mortgagees till 1922 when the mortgagor issued a notice to them the lessees) alleging that all the mortgages aforesaid had been disc barged and demanding that the rent falling due thereafter should be paid to himself. Accordingly the lessees paid the rent for the subsequent period to the mortgagor till the expiry of the lease in June 1925, when it was renewed at first for one year and then for a further period often years under a registered cowle dated the 23 December. 1925. In view of this repudiation of their rights, the mortgagees, after making ineffectual demands for the arrears of rent and surrender of possession, brought a suit against the lessees in 1926 to recover possession of the suit lands together with arrears of rent from 1922 till the expiry of the original lease in 1925, and mesne profits thereafter till delivery, claiming that the mortgages had not been fully discharged and that they were entitled to possession under the terms of the bonds of 1915 and 1916. The suit was dismissed on the preliminary ground that the mortgagees were not entitled to possession under the bonds, but, on appeal, this Court, by judgment dated 27 April, 1932, reversed the decision and remanded the suit for disposal after full trial. After a regrettable delay of nearly ten years due for the most part to various interlocutory proceedings some of which were carried to this Court, a preliminary decree for sale was passed on 31 October, 1942. From this decree the mortgagees have preferred the appeal A.S. No. 174 of 1943.