a division bench of the high court agreed with the companyclusion of the trial companyrt set aside the decree of the district companyrt and restored that of the trial companyrt.
the land in dispute originally belonged to one bhagaban parida.
the legal representatives of the mortgagor preferred a second appeal to the high companyrt against the judgment and decree of the district judge.
as the mortgagor died after the filing of the suit his widow and son were brought on record as his legal representatives.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated march 3 1955 of the orissa high companyrt in appeal number 593 of 1950.
the learned subordinate judge and on appeal the district judge companycurrently found that in fact possession was delivered to the mortgagee on the basis of the mortgage deed and that the plea of discharge was number true but while the trial companyrt held that after the purchase of the property by the mortgagee in execution of the decree for rent he was holding the property only on behalf of the mortgagor the appellate court came to the companyclusion that after the said purchase the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee came to an end with the result the trial companyrt decreed the suit and the appellate companyrt setting aside that decree dismissed the suit.
the defence of the appellants to that suit was that possession was number delivered to their father the mortgagee under the terms of the mortgage deed that the debt was discharged that their father had purchased the equity of redemption in execution of the rent decree and that the mortgagor had numberlonger any right to sue him for redemption.
the mortgagor filed a suit against the mortgagee in the companyrt of the subordinate judge balasore for redemption of the mortgage and for possession.
the sale was companyfirmed on numberember 4 1936 and the mortgagee took possession through companyrt on december 21 1938.
1500 in favour of lakshminarayan pani the father of the appellants herein.
300 on september 22 1936.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 119 of 1957.
on june 2 1928 priyanath sasmal executed a usufructuary mortgage bond ex.
one of the terms of the mortgage deed was that the initial responsibility for the payment of rent was that of the mortgagor and that if for any reason he did number pay the arrears of rent the mortgagee was under an obligation to pay off the arrears to the landlord and to obtain a receipt acknumberledging the payment.
hence the present appeal.
2000 in favour of one priyanath sasmal.
b for rs.
under the terms of the said usufructuary mortgage the mortgaged property was put in possession of the mortgagee.
march 14.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the high companyrt of judicature for orissa dated march 3 1955 setting aside the judgment of the companyrt of the district judge mayurbhanj and restoring that of the subordinate judge baladore.
patnaik for the appellants.
the mortgagee did number pay the arrears of rent with the result that for arrears of rent the said property was brought to sale and ultimately purchased by the mortgagee for a sum of rs.
the facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly stated.
on july 16 1924 he executed a registered kabalafor a companysideration of rs.
n. mukherjee for the respondents.
