ABDUL MAJID Vs. LDALEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by Abdul Majid and Ors. under Section 115, Civil P.C. against the order of the second Civil Judges, Meerut by which the decree of the trial Court in a suit under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act was modified on appeal by Daleep Singh, opposite party.

(2.) The applicants brought a suit under Section 12; Agriculturists Relief Act for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 20 April 1918, The mortgage in suit was executed by Abdul-Majeed, Abdul Samad, Abdul Wahab, Abdul Majid, five sons of Nasrat Ali and Mt, Bismillab Jan, widow of Nasrat Ali. Some time after the execution of the mortgage deed, the interest of some of the mortgagors was sold at a court auction. It has been found by the lower appellate Court that the equity of redemption of 33/40 part of the mortgaged property has been sold off and only 7/40 part of the mortgaged property is still with some of the mortgagors. The question then arose whether the liability of the mortgagors for payment of the mortgage money-had been transferred or not and whether the mortgagors could get the benefit of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act in view of Section 2, Sub-section (9) of that Act. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the liability for payment of 33/40 part of the debt had been transferred to the auction- purchaser and this portion of the. debt ceased to be a loan and, therefore, the benefits of the Debt Redemption Act would not accrue to the applicants and they were only entitled to the benefits of that Act with respect to 7/40 share of the debt. The lower appellate Court then went into the question of accounting and ordered redemption on payment of a sum of Ha. 2,050. This substantially varied the decree of the trial Court which had decreed redemption without payment of any money holding that the entire mortgage debt had been paid off by the. usufruct under the U.P. Debt Redemption Act

(3.) The applicants contend, in this revision, that the lower appellate Court was not right in coming to the conclusion that the benefit of the. Debt Redemption Act would not accrue with respect to 33/40 part of the mortgage debt and that the applicants were entitled to the benefits-of the said Act with respect to the entire debt and that, therefore, the decree of the trial Court. should be restored. In this connection, reliance has been placed, on behalf of the applicants, on the case of Saran Singh V/s. Miththan Lal P.B.