Judgment

DUTT, J. : - This appeal by special leave is at the instance of the defendants in suit for redemption of two mortgages and is directed against the judgment and decree of the Bombay High Court affirming those of the Join Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, decreeing the suit.

2. On June 16, 1925, the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents executed a possessory mortgage bond for Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The mortgage bond contained a recital that the mortgagee should appropriate the income of the property consisting of some plots of land towards the sum of Rs. 3,000/- and was entitled to interest @ 9 % per annum for the balance sum of Rs. 2,000/-. By a second mortgage bond, which was by way of a simple mortgage executed on September 3, 1928, the mortgagors mortgaged the same property to the same mortgagee to secure repayment of a further loan of Rs. 2,000/- with interest @9% per annum.

3. The respondents filed a suit for redmption of the two mortgages in the court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ichalakaranji, being Suit No. 3 of 1947. A preliminary decree for redemption was passed on September 20, 1948 and it was declared that the amount of Rs. 12,125/- and odd and a further amount of Rs. 236/- being the cost of the suit, were due from the mortgagors to the mortgagee. The mortgagors were directed to pay the amount within six months and on such payment to get the property redeemed; failing which liberty was given to the mortgagee to apply for a final decree for sale. As the mortgagors failed to make payment within the specified period, on an application made by the mortgagee, a final decree for sale was passed in the suit on March 21, 1952. The decretal dues, as declared in the final deree, were Rs. 12,361/- and odd plus cost amounting to Rs. 41/- for which the mortgaged property or sufficient portion thereof was directed to be sold. In other words, a preliminary decree and a final decree in accordance with the provision of Order XXXIV, Rules 7 and 8 were passed.

4. Although the final decree for sale of the mortgaged property was passed, the mortgagee did not execute the final decree and allowed the same to be time barred. The mortgagee and after, him, his heirs and legal representatives, however, continued to be in possession of the mortgaged propery.

5. The respondents, who are the successors-in-interest of the original mortgagors, filed a second suit for redemption of the mortgages, being Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 1968 in the court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, on January 9, 1968 against the appellants, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the original mortgagee. It was claimed by the respondents that in spite of the passing of the final decree for sale in the earlier suit, being Suit No. 3, 1947, the mortgage still subsisted, and that they were entitled to redeem the same and get possession of the mortgaged property. Accordingly, they prayed for a decree for redemption, accounts and possession of the mortgaged property from the appellants.

6. The appellants contested the suit by filing written statement. It was contended by them that as the mortgagors did not pay the decretal dues under the decree passed in the previous suit, their right of redemption had been extinguished. They denied the respondents claim for accounts. It was claimed by the appellants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 that their predecessors-in-title were tenants of the suit land from before 1925 and, as such, they had become protected tenants under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Alternatively, it was contended that even if the respondents were held to be entitled to redeem the mortgages, they were not entitled to obtain physical possession of the mortgaged property, as the appellants had become protected tenants.

7. The learned Joint Civil Judge came to the findings that notwithstanding the preliminary decree or the final decree passed in the previous suit, be