The learned Trial Judge, however, decreed the suit rejecting the objection put forth by the defendant and granted the relief of redemption.
The defendants had taken the stand that under the Mortgage Deed the mortgagor was liable to pay rent in respect of the holding and numberrent having been paid, in a suit instituted by the landlord for arrears of rent, a decree had been obtained and in execution thereof the property had been put to sale and the defendant mortgagee paid the decretal amount in question and, therefore, a suit for redemption will number lie.
1 dated 4th May, 1980 had been executed in favour of the defendants.
Defendants carried the matter in appeal and the said appeal having been dismissed they approached the High Court in Second Appeal.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the mortgagors having failed to pay a portion of rent for realisation of which the landlord had filed a suit and obtained a decree and that said decree being put to execution and the mortgagee having paid up the decretal dues, the mortgagor looses his right of redemption and, therefore the suit for redemption must fail.
The plaintiffs appellants filed a suit for redemption of 2 bighas 3 kathas and 6 dhurs of land in respect of which a usufructuary mortgage bond Exhibit No.
The High Court by the impugned judgment having reversed the judgment and decree of the Courts below and having dismissed the suit for redemption the present appeal has been preferred.
PATTANAIK, J. This appeal by the mortgagors is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 28th of July, 1980 in the Second Appeal arising out of a suit for redemption.
