Om Parkash and Another vs Dewan Chand and Others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts be-low passing a final decree for redemption. The facts are that a suit was filed on the 30th December, 1957, for redemption of a mortgage dated the 30th January, 1899 During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was entered into whereby the mortgage money was fixed at Rs. 575/- and it was to be paid by a certain date, that is, the 6th July, 1959, and the parties agreed that the preliminary decree be passed. Accordingly, a preliminary decree in terms of the compromise was passed. However, the promised payment was not made on the 6th July, 1959, but was made on the 25th November, 1959. In the meant me an application had been made for extension of time to make the deposit us well as for final decree on the 12th November, 1959. The application for ex-tension of the time was rejected, but the decree was made final. Against this decision, the mortgagee took up an appeal to the lower Appellate Court and his contention was that as there was default in making the deposit of the mortgage money by the 6th July, 1959, no final decree could be passed Tin''s contention was negatived by the lower Appellate Court on the basis of certain decisions relied on. by him.

However, there is a direct decision of the Madras High Court in Angammal v. V.K.M. Muhammad Sulaiman AIR 1946 Mad 38, with which I am in respectful agreement and it concludes the matter. Once a preliminary decree is passed the mortgagor can deposit the mortgage money fixed by the preliminary decree at any time and obtain a final decree. That being so, it cannot be said that the Courts below were in error in passing the final decree.

For the reasons given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.