RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD Vs. AMBIKA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who is described as a istimrari pattadar (permanent lease- holder) under an instrument of the year 1897 in respect of certain sir land, sues to redeem a mortgage created by the predecessor in title of his lessor in the year 1840 over a property, of which the sir land leased to the plaintiff is a part. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has such an interest in the mortgaged property as would give him a right to redeem under the provisions of Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act. The lower appellate Court has held that the plaintiff has no such interest under his lease as would confer upon him the right to come in and ask to redeem the property.

(2.) The plaintiff comes in second appeal to this Court, and it is contended that under the special conditions of the lease in the plaintiff's favour he has such an interest in the property as would confer upon him the title to come in and redeem. The terms of the so-called patta are somewhat peculiar.

(3.) In consideration of a sum of Rs. 800 premium the plaintiff is placed in possession of the sir lands specified in the document and, subject to the yearly payment of the rent of Rs. 40-6-6, he can do whatever he likes with the property. Even for nonpayment of rent he may not be ejected, and the lessors have their remedy to recover their rent by proceeding against other property. If the title of the lessors is found to be defective, they are liable to repay the Rs. 800 premium. The lease was one in perpetuity. The terms of the document would, no doubt, bring it under the definition of "lease" as given in the Transfer of Property Act. The effect of the document is to confer all rights of ownership upon the plaintiff, subject to payment of a yearly rent. I am referred on behalf of the appellant to the following rulings: Paya Matathil Appu V/s. Kovamel Amina (1895) I.L.R., 19 Mad., 151, Radha Pershad Misser V/s. Monohur Das (1860) I.L.R., 6 Calc., 317, Jugul Kissore Lal Sing Deo V/s. Kartic Chunder Chottopadhya (1892) I.L.R., 21 Calc., 116, Kasumunnisa Bibee V/s. Nilratna, Bose (1881) I.L.R., 8 Calc., 79 and Ram Subhag v. Nar Singh (1905) I.L.R., 27 All., 472.