8/71 by judgment and decree dated 28.7,77 dismissed the suit on the finding that the appellant had lost his title since the property was sold and Ramtahal Singh became the owner of the property at the auction sale.
C II dated 3.8.46, the property was purchased by Ramtahal Singh, 11th defendant/19th respondent herein, Though the trial companyrt decreed the suit, the appellate companyrt in Title appeal No.
1995 2 SCR 942 The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Patna High Court in Second Appeal No.
The father of the appellant plaintiff hypothecated the plaint schedule property of 5 bighas 3 kathas 16 dhoors by usufructuary mortgage on 10.7.1911 for a sum of Rs.
261, One of the terms of the mortgage, as found by the companyrts below, was that the first respondent mortgagee should pay the land revenue.
762/77 dated 17.7.78, which was dis missed in limine.
It would appear that the mortgagee companymitted default in its payment for recovery of which the property was brought to sale.
Under Ex.
Consequently, the appellant is number entitled to redeem the property.