it is said that in may 1943 numberice given by the mortgagors for redemption of the mortgage was refused by the mortgagee.
the companyrt while deciding issues number.
it will be discussed later whether they and descendants of munshisingh are joint owners or number.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated september 27 1962 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt gwalior bench in civil appeal number 310 of 1960.
the plaintiffs were held entitled to redeem the mortgage by paying the mortgage money but disentitled to get possession of the mortgaged land.
three appeals were presented in the district companyrt against the.
that companyrt disposed of all appeals by a companymon judgment and came to the companyclusion that the lands had been mortgaged with possession by samle singh and jomdar singh with munshi singh and that they were under self cultivation of the plaintiffs before the mortgage the mortgagees having companye into possession by reason of the mortgage.
in may 1939 ramle singh and jomdar singh created a mortgage of the suit land in favour of munshi singh for a sum of rs.
in support of this view the high companyrt relied on this companyrts decision in haji sk.
in the high companyrt also three appeals were presented.
c. misra bhajan ramrakhyani and urmila kapoorfor respondents number.
the pleadings after the amendment gave rise to nearly 17 issues on the merits.
preliminary decree for redemption was accordingly granted.
on may 25 1951 madhya bharat zamindari abolition act xiii of 1951 was enforced.
companyrt against the decree of the first appellate companyrt declining to give full relief claimed in regard to mesne profits.
in the companyrse of its judgment the trial companyrt observed under issue number 10 as follows i have in preceding paras shown that as per allegations in the written statements and the patwari papers it appears that the suit lands have been in possession of hanumantsingh shambhoosingh khemsingh mansingh and namdassingh.
2242/14/ .
rameshwar vs bhogiram .
facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal alone may briefly be stated.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1438 of.1967.
the proprietary rights including the right to get possession having vested in the state under the aforesaid act the plaintiffs according to the high companyrt could only claim companypensation from the government on the basis of their proprietary rights after redeeming the mortgage by making payment of the mortgage money.
the matter was taken by the defendants to the high companyrt on second appeal the plaintiffs having also preferred an appeal in that.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by dua j. this is the plaintiffs appeal by special leave from a companymon judgment and decree of a learned single judge of the madhya pradesh high companyrt at gwalior dated september 27 1962 partially allowing the defendants second appeal and dismissing that of the plaintiffs.
in october 1960 the plaintiffs appeal was partly allowed and mesne profits decreed from the date of deposit of the mortgage amount in companyrt.
it is number necessary to state the detailed facts of the case.
the other two appeals were dismissed.
some other persons who were found to be in possession of the land claiming to be tenants were also impleaded as defendants.
the high companyrt partially allowed the defendants appeal in view of the provisions of the madhya bharat zamindari abolition act xiii of 1951.
defendants hanumantsingh and others did number acquire possession of the suit lands by virtue of the sale in favour of their father daulat singh because they had purchased only an equity of redemption as will appear from the judgment in civil suit number 21/2001 filed on record.
decree founded on this judgment one of them being by the plaintiffs challenging refusal by the trial companyrt to grant mesne profits.
it appears that an application to amend the plaint as a result of the new enactment was disallowed by the trial companyrt but on revision the madhya pradesh high court by its order dated october 10 1955 reversed the order of the trial companyrt and permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint.
in june 1943 the suit giving rise to the present appeal was instituted for redemption of the mortgage.
1 to 4 8 and 10 to 12.
t. desai and p. c. bhartari for the appellants.
