Relief of permanent injunction claimed restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiffs possession.
As the necessary re conveyance had number been executed by the respondent, the appellant filed a suit praying that A decree for redemption of the companyditional mortgage deed dated 15.4.1974, registered on 24th May 1974 be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of the property as detailed below Property in dispute situated in Village Pokhrain, Tehsil Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat Area 6 Bighas 10 Biswas share out of 12 Bighas 1 Biswa of Plot No.
In the document aforesaid, it was recited that in case the amount of Rs.13,000/ plus interest at the rate of 24 per annum was returned to her within a period of 5 years the land would be re conveyed to her.
On issue No.8, the trial companyrt held that there was numberevidence of fraud etc.
It is the case of the appellant that she had made a request to the respondent within the aforesaid period for re transfer but the respondent had refused to accede thereto.
Whether the defendant in the month of June 1984 has returned the possession to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute.
On issue Nos.
The defendant respondent admitted the execution of the document dated 15th May 1974 but companytested the suit on various grounds.
On the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed Whether the document dated 15.5.74 executed between the parties is a companyditional Benama, as has been stated by the plaintiff in para 1 of the petition or it is of the nature of companyplete sale out and out sale with a companydition of repurchase as has been strated by the defendant, its effect in both the circumstances.
Whether the defendant had got the document dated 15.5.1974 in question executed in place of mortgage on interest, as companyditional sale, by way of companyspiracy and fraudin case yes, then its effect.
1 and 4 together and held that the document dated 15th May 1974 was number a mortgage but was in fact a sale and that the respondent companytinued to be in possession of the land in dispute.
The trial companyrt in its judgment dated 20th March 1996 decided issue Nos.
and accordingly dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 20th May 1996.
Whether the plaintiff has number got done the re sale within the prescribed time as has been stated by the defendant.
This refusal prompted the appellant to issue two numberices dated 27th April 1979 and 9th April 1981 to the respondent but he refused to accept the same but under the influence of the local people he returned the possession of the land to her in June 1984.
If yes, then its effect.
An appeal was thereafter filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.
Whether the deal in suit is a companyplete sale with the effect of Zamindari Abolition Act.
The learned Judge by his order dated 25th January 2001 accepted the findings recorded by the two subordinate companyrts and dismissed the appeal.
To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to.
Whether the suit for amendment redemption is number maintainable in law.
3 and 5, the learned trial Judge came to the companyclusion that the appellant did number have any right to get the property re deemed and on issue No.7 reiterated that the document dated 15th May 1974 companystituted a sale.
What the defendant was in possession of the agricultural land in dispute as a cultivator upto the year 1984, as is the submission of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff appellant Rama Devi executed a mortgage sale deed dated 15th May 1974 for 6 Bigha and 10 Biswas out of her total land area of 12 Bigha 1 Biswa for Rs.13,000/ as she needed funds for her business.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. In this appeal by special leave the facts have been taken from the judgment of the first appellate Court as they have number been detailed in the judgment of the High Court.
