The Second Appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed summarily by the Rajasthan High Court vide its order dated 7th August, 1991.
The relevant portion of the order is quoted below Heard the arguments of the learned companynsel for the Appellant in the aforesaid both appeals for admission and perused the Judgments of the Courts below and the material available on the file.
The suit was decreed and the appeal filed by the respondent number1 was dismissed.
The Trial Court, on perusal of the pleadings of the parties, framed ten issues of which issue Nos.2, 7 and 9 are relevant for the purpose of the present proceeding.
Thereafter the appellant filed a Civil Suit No.140/73/111/74 for redemption of the mortgage.
The said issues are to the effect that Whether the plaintiff has got the right to file the suit?
The further case pleaded by the defendant number3 was that he has numberprivity of companytract with the plaintiff as he got the property by mortgage from Smt.
The operative portion of the judgment reads Upon the plaintiff paying to the defendant No.3 Rs.2612.25 Rs.2400/ mortgage amount and Rs.212.25 as expenses for repairs etc.
Thereafter Sugan Chand mortgaged the suit property with possession to Smt.
The Second Appeal No.168/91 filed by him is pending in the High Court.
the plaintiff shall have the right to get the property in dispute redeemed and the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the possession of the disputed property.
Sugan Chand and Smt.
During the pendency of the suit, Smt.
Chand Bai.
It is relevant to state here that in the suit, Nathu Lal was the main companytesting defendant.
Chand Bai filed a Civil Suit No.69/70 4/76 in the Court of the Munsif, Sawai Madhopur for mandatory injunction, for declaration of easementary rights, etc.
Parsadi and Hanumandas on 28.7.1961 for Rs.2400/ under a registered mortgaged deed.
Chand Bai were impleaded as Defendant Nos.1 to 5 respectively in the said suit.
3700/ vide the registered mortgage deed dated 17.2.1950.
Nathulal is in possession of the suit property.
Parsadi, Hanuman Dass, Nathu Lal, Sugan Chand and Smt.
Parsadi and Hamuman Dass, Defendants 1 and 2 had entered into a companypromise with the plaintiff.
The trial Court answered all these issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 15th March, 1978.
When the respondent number1 started demolishing a portion of the suit property, Smt.
Chand Bai executed a gift deed on 29.1.1971 in favour of Surendra Kumar, appellant herein.
The plaintiff shall also pay Rs.1300/ to Shri Sugan Chand, defendant No.4.
Chand Bai, Defendants 4 and 5 filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the house in dispute?
She mortgaged those rooms with possession to Sugan Chand for Rs.
Parsadi and Hanumandas in turn mortgaged the suit property with possession to Nathulal, the respondent number1 herein.
The appeal, Civil Appeal No.11/78/75/86 filed by the respondent number1 challenging the judgment decree of the trial Court was allowed by the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur and the suit was dismissed vide the judgment dated 11th October, 1989.
Said Smt.
P.MOHAPATRA, J. LITTTTTTTJ Smt.
The plaintiff shall deposit the said amount in the Court on 30.3.78 and on the same day the defendant Nathu Lal shall produce the documents regarding the mortgage in the Court.
Whether the gift deed is companylusive?
On the third floor of the house some rooms were companystructed by the said Smt.
