In the result, the respondents suit was dismissed.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
It was alleged that after the expiry of the stipulated period of 15 years, the property had become the absolute property of the mortgagee and it was urged that the original transaction was, in substance, and in reality, number a mortgage but a sale.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 28, 1958 of the Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in D. B. Civil First Appeal No.
In the plaint filed by the respondent, it was averred that the transaction was, in substance, a mortgage and the mortgagors right to redeem was alive even though the stipulated period of 15 years for the repayment of the loan had passed.
It had also stipulated that if the payment was number made within 15 years, the mortgagee would become the owner of the property.
On these allegations, the respondent claimed a decree for redemption of the suit mortgage on payment of Rs.
It appears that the original mortgagee Gangadhar had also died before the institution of the suit, and so, the appellant Murarilal was impleaded as the defendant on the basis that he was the only heir and legal representative of the deceased mortgagee Gangadhar.
The claim for redemption thus made by the respondent was resisted by the appellant on several grounds.
Several other pleas were also raised by the appellant in resisting the respondents claim, but it is unnecessary to refer to them.
484 of 1961.
The High Court has upheld his first companytention that the relevant 51 S.C. 16.
The learned trial Judge framed appropriate issues which arose on the pleading of the parties.
Findings were made on other issues also and they were against the respondent.
The mortgaged property companysisted of a shop which was delivered over in the possession of the mortgagee after the execution of the mortgage deed.
The mortgage deed had provided that the amount due under the mortgage should be repaid to the mortgagee within 15 years, whereupon the property would be redeemed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
P. Sinha and Naunit Lal, for the respondents.
6,500.
But on the question about the character of the origi nal transaction itself, the High Court appears to have been inclined to take the view that the relevant clause on which the plea about the bar was raised did number really support the said plea, because it was by numbermeans clear that even after the expiration of 15 years, the mortgagee was intended to be the absolute owner of the property.
May 8, 1964.
The respondent then took the matter in appeal before the Rajasthan High Court.
provision as to the period within which the mortgage amount had to be repaid amounted to a clog on the equity of redemption and companyld number be pleaded as a bar to the present suit.
The mortgagor was Mangal Ram who died and the respondent claims to be the heir and legal representative of the said deceased mortgagor.
The mortgage sought to be redeemed was executed on the 19th March, 1919 for a sum of Rs.
On these findings, the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the respondents suit has been reversed and the suit has been remanded to the trial Court to be disposed of in accordance with law.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a redemption suit filed by the respondent Dev Karan against the appellant Murarilal.
Sarjoo Prasad and Harbans Singh, for the appellants.
64 of 1951.
Pending the appeal before this Court, both the appellant and the respondent have died, and their respective heirs have been brought on the record.
