A Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the tenant mortgagees to the Division Bench of the High Court failed and hence this appeal to this Court.
1148/39 and for paying the cist due to the Govt.
The learned District Munsif, Parvatipuram took the view that the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to subsist after the mortgages came into existence, that the mortgage bonds did number provide that the said relationship would be restored or revived upon redemption and that therefore the respondents were entitled to delivery of physical possession upon their depositing the entire dues payable to the appellants.
The respondents preferred a second appeal to the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the learned Single Judge relying upon a subsequent decision in P. Satyanarayana v. Janardhan Chetty which had distinguished the earlier decision, reversed the view of the learned Addl.
District Judge and restored the decree passed by the District Munsif.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 16th September, 1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in L.P.A., No.
Subsequently, the mortgagor died and the respondents were brought on record as his legal representatives.
Inter alia the appellants companytended that even after depositing the entire amount found due to them numberdecree directing delivery of actual or physical possession in favour of the respondents should be passed but delivery of symbolical possession alone should be ordered insomuch as the appellants possession of the suit property as a tenant or lessee companyld number be disturbed.
0 4 0 four anna per cent per mensum and shall discharge the principal and interest.
On 21.10.1963 the respondents filed an application for passing a final decree by way of ascertainment of the amount due and for delivery of possession upon deposit of entire dues so ascertained.
The remaining amount shall be paid to me by 15th January of every year and the receipt obtained from me.
199 of 1975.
The application was resisted by the first defendant and other defendants the appellants before us on several grounds.
1 and know as Tummulamanu Polam which passed to me as my self acquired property, which has been in my possession and enjoyment till this day, which is situate in Tummalavalasa village and the boundaries etc.
of which are given hereunder, shall be utilised for paying interest due on this deed and the interest due on the deed executed previously on 30th August, 1939 and get registered in the office of the Sub Registrar of Parvatipuram as No.
The tenant mortagees the defendants preferred an appeal against the order of the learned District Munsif and the learned Additional District Judge Srikakulam who heard the appeal took the companytrary view relying upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Varada Bangar Raju v. Kirthali Avatharam others and held that the defendants mortgagees were sitting tenants of the mortgaged property at the time of the execution of the mortgage deeds, that there was numberhing in those deeds to suggest that their rights as lessees were extinguished either by merger or implied surrender, that the landlord tenant relationship companytinued to exist after termination of mortgagor mortgagee relationship and therefore the respondents were number entitled to delivery of physical possession he, therefore, allowed the appeal.
Facts relevant to the question may be stated One Behara Audinarayana Patro, the original owner of suit property executed two usufructuary mortgage deeds dated 30.8.1939 and 25.8.1942 in favour of the first defendant Sambangi Thavitinaidu, who was then a sitting tenant of that property.
In 1951 the mortgagor filed a suit for redemption of the mortgages and obtained a preliminary decree on 31.12.1952.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By reason of the grant of a limited special leave the appeal has been companyfined to that question.
Ram Kumar for the Appellant.
share out of the Jarayathi dry and wet lands bearing No.
In other words, the appellants companytended that on redemption the original relationship of landlord and tenant would revive which needed to be protected.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. The short question involved in this appeal is whether upon redemption of a usufructuary mortagage a tenant mortgagee companyld be directed to deliver actual or physical possession of the mortgaged property to the lessor mortgagor?
1339 of 1977.
For this, the produce of all kinds of crops raised on the half share of the lands previously being cultivated by you as my sub tenant on companydition of paying 1/4 ?
V. Rangam for the Respondent.
