GANESHI LAL Vs. ROHNI RUKUMDHUJ PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaiU270496ntiffs appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of a simple mortgage dated 22 January, 1922, executed by the plaintiffs predecessor in favour of Mitangdhwaj Prasad Singh, the deceased father of the original defendants. It is not necessary to give the particulars of this mortgage, because the only point in dispute was whether in consequence of a deposit having been made under Section 83, T.P. Act, interest ceased to run from that date.

(2.) On 18 July 1923, the original mortgagee, Mitangdhwaj Prasad Singh, was dead and he had left two sons and a, widow. On that date the plaintiffs deposited an amount which was admittedly sufficient to cover the principal and interest up to that date to the credit of the two sons of Mitangdhwaj Prasad Singh who were both described as minors. On that date the plaintiffs also filed an application to the Court, praying that the mother of the minors should be appointed their guardian ad litem and this application was supported by an affidavit. Notices were sent to the minors and their mother. The latter appeared in Court and filed a petition saying that the elder son was not a minor but a major, and that she could not, therefore, act as his guardian. The plaintiffs did not accept her statement, but requested that the Court should enquire into that matter, and also stated that if the Court found that the elder son was of age the plaintiffs had no objection to treating him as such. The Court refused to go into this disputed question of minority and ordered that the application should be filed . The corresponding order on the order-sheet shows that it was consigned to the record room.

(3.) The plaintiffs then instituted the present suit for redemption and claimed the benefit of the deposit of July 1923. On behalf of defendant 1, Shirdhwaj Prasad Singh, it was pleaded that he was of age on the date of the previous deposit and had not been represented in those proceedings.