AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jwala Prasd, Acting C.J.
This appeal crises out of a suit for redemption. The Courts below have held that the defendants are in possession of the land as mortgagees under three separate oral transactions. The consideration for these mortgages aggregate Rs. 240. Mr. Varma on behalf of the appellants contends that the mortgage for Rs. 240 must be by registered-deed and as it was not by registered-deed the mortgage was invalid. He also disputes the finding as to there being three separate mortgages and as to their having been consolidated into one. The reason for this latter contention is based upon an observation of the trial Court to the effect that the three items of Rs. 70, Rs. 80 and Rs. 90, for which the plaintiffs mortgaged these lands, had to be paid to three different persons, but the subsequent observation by the Subordinate Judge shows that the mortgages were considered to be in favour of one and the same person. The Survey Record-of Rights mentions the mortgagee to be the same person and so did the tezkhanas. In the plaint also the mortgage is said to be in favour of only one person. Upon the findings of the Court below each of the three mortgages being for less than Rs. 100, no registration was necessary but even if there was any necessity for registration, the mortgagee has no right to oppose redemption of the same. The mortgagee took possession of the property under invalid deeds and it was for him to have proper and valid deeds executed in his favour. The principle once a mortgage always a mortgage must apply, and the mortgagee cannot be in any other position but that of mortgagee and cannot be permitted to resist the redemption by the mortgagor.
The trial Court further shows that if any hostile possession was asserted by the mortgagee, it was in the year 1909 in the criminal case and the suit instituted in August 1917 was well within time. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.
Adami, J.
I agree.