SOHAN LAL Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to a Bench of three Judges for the decision of points of law which will be presently stated. It will be necessary to state briefly the facts of the case in order to see how the law applies and what rule of law will be applicable.

(2.) The facts that have been found by the lower appellate Court and which, therefore, have been accepted for purposes of the determination of the points of law, are these: There was an usufructuary mortgage of a certain house property made in the year 1873. It was made for the sum of Rs. 1,000. In course of time the property came to be owned by one Damodar who, therefore, represented the original mortgagor. In course of time the mortgagee's interest came to be owned by the defendant, Ragha Mal. Ragha Mal was defendant 1 in the suit. He has since died and is represented on the record by his successors in-title. Damodar executed on 28 February 1901, a deed of sale in favour of Ragha Mal in respect of the mortgaged property for a sum of Rs. 90. The sale-deed was never registered. The mortgagees and, after them, their successors-in-interest, continued to be in possession of the mortgaged property and are still in possession. Damodar died in 1914. His brother and heir, Krishna Ram, by a sale-deed dated 28 January 1919, professed to sell, the properties in suit to the plaintiffs who are the respondents in this appeal. They brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for redemption.

(3.) The suit has been met with the plea that the mortgagor sold his rights to the mortgagee by the deed of 1901 and, therefore, no right is left in Krishna Ram or his transferee to sue for redemption. The plaintiffs urge that the sale-deed, being unregistered, was not admissible in evidence and did not transfer any title of Damodar to Ragha Mal and that, therefore, the plea of Ragha Mal that he had become the owner of the property is unmaintainable. On behalf of Ragha Mal it was contended that, conceding that the deed of 1901 did not transfer any title to him, he, at least, begin to hold the property, from 1901, adversely to the mortgagor and that, therefore, by 12 years adverse possession, he acquired the mortgagor's interest in the property, so that nothing was left in 1919, which could be transferred by Krishna Ram to the plaintiffs.