That has resulted in the appellants companying in appeal before this Court.
Exhibit 35A mortgage was for a period of 12 years.
In second appeal No.
The first respondent also pleaded that in case of redemption he should be paid companypensation.
244/23 situate at Lalgun Taluka Khatav, Distt.
He paid the occupancy price on his own and obtained the regrant from the Government.
Appellants father died in 1953.
His three sons Nivruti Bapusaheb Katkar Jagtap , Dnyandev Bapusaheb Katkar Jagtap and Sahelrao Bapusaheb Katkar Jagtap have been impleaded as his legal representative.
The mortgage companyld number be redeemed within the period fixed.
His father one Shripati executed a possessory mortgage of the suit property, R.S. No.
The first respondent declined to accede to the request.
The trial companyrt, by order dated 8.12.1971, dismissed the suit.
Pending this appeal, first respondent died on 1.6.1985.
The appellant was a minor then.
514 of 1974 by order dated 19.11.1979, a learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay restored the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
29 of 1972, by order dated 30.1.1974, decreed the suit and passed a preleminary decree for redemption and recovery of possession of the property.
1,200/ in favour of the first respondent, 1st defendant , Bapu Ganapati Jagtap.
1,200/ and sought redemption.
The land was resumed by the Government and was regranted to the first respondent Ext.
The second respondent Laxmi Devi Shripati Nale is the appellant mother.
So, the suit was laid for redemption of the mortgage, Exhibit 35A. The first respondent pleaded that transaction Exhibit 35A was really a sale.
The mortgages was to take the income of the property and appropriate the same towards the interest due etc.
By Maharashtra Act 60 of 1950, the land was resumed by the Government Ext.
After the expiry of the said period, the appellant caused a numberice to be sent agreeing to repay the mortgage amount Rs.
Paripooran.
So, the appellant has numbersubsisting right to redeem.
In appeal the District Judge, Satara, in Civil Appeal No.
40 of 1970 Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vaduj, is the appellant herein.
In the alternative, he pleaded that the plaint item is an inam and it was abolished by the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans Abolition Act, 1950 Maharashtra Act 60 of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
J. The plaintiff in Civil Suit No.
Satara, by Exhibit 35A dated 3.4.1947 for Rs.
