AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The suit was brought u/s 7, clause XI (cc) of the Court Fees Act on payment of the court fees upon one year''s rent. Therefore the title of the
plaintiffs need not be gone into in this case. We express no opinion whether the documents, Ex. A, B, & 1, constitute a sale with a condition to
repurchase or a mortgage by conditional sale. We are not to be understood as agreeing with the conclusion at which the Courts below have
arrived upon this point.
It is argued that as the full amounts mentioned in Exhibits A and B have been deposited in Court, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree for
rent. As was pointed out in Satyabai Behara v. Harabati ILR (1907) C. 223 and in Rukmani Bai v. Venkatesh ILR (1907) B 527, mere deposit of
the amount does not put an end to the relationship already subsisting. Even if the plaintiffs were only mortgagees so long as Exhibit B subsists, they
can sue for possession and for rent under it. We agree with the decisions of the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts and hold that the payment into
Court has not taken away from the plaintiffs the right to sue for possession under Exhibit B. We uphold the decree solely upon this ground. We
think this is a fit case in which the parties should bear their own costs in this Court.
The Second Appeal is dismissed.