NANNU MAL Vs. RAM CHARAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance: There was an additional plaintiff in the person of Kundan Lal who was originally in the array of defendants but was made a co-plaintiff with Nannu Mal, because the mortgage deed stands in the name of Kundan Lal, while the real owner is Nannu Mal. It being agreed that Nannu Mal is the real mortgagee, Kundan Lal may be left out of account.

(2.) The facts so far as this appeal is concerned are these. There were two mortgages. The prior one was in favour of the defendants Ram Charan and Ganga Sahai and the second one was in favour of Nannu Mal, although, as stated, the deed stood in the name of Kundan Lal. Ram Charan and Ganga Sahai brought a suit for recovery of their money on foot of their mortgage, but did not implead either Nannu Mal or Kundan Lal as a party to the suit. The result was that after the usual decree for sale, the property was sold in execution of the decree and was purchased by the mortgagees themselves. After all this had happened, Nannu Mal had brought a suit for recovery of his money. He impleaded Ram Charan and Ganga Sahai as subsequent purchasers of the property, They pleaded that they were also prior mortgagees and they should be allowed to hold their prior mortgage as a shield against Nannu Mal's suit. Thereupon Nannu Mal offered to redeem the prior mortgage in favour of Ram Charan and Ganga Sahai. The question that has arisen for our decision is: What is the amount which Ram Charan and Ganga Sahai should get in order to effect redemption?

(3.) The Court below has held that Ram Charan and Ganga Sahai are entitled to their principal amount and interest at the stipulated rate up to the date of the auction purchase. The contention of the appellant before us is that the prior mortgagees are not entitled to interest on the mortgage money on the stipulated rate, but that they should get only what was decreed to them in the prior suit. In other words, the appellant's contention is that the appellant should have the advantage of the reduction of interest made by the decree after the date of the institution of the suit.