The case established that the rights of tenants created by a mortgagee must be in accordance with the terms of the mortgage deed and protected by statute. The court emphasized that tenants could not continue in possession after redemption of the mortgage, except in specific circumstances as provided by law.

Judgement

RUMA PAL, J. :- The Appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are the owners of 247 Kanals and 15 marlas of agricultural land situated in the district of Patiala. The Appellant No. 1 is the erstwhile second mortgagee of the land. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were the erstwhile prior mortgagees of the land and also claim to be tenants of the land. The question to be determined is whether despite redemption of the prior mortgage by payment to the respondents 1 and 2, they can claim to remain in occupation of the land as tenants.

2. The land was owned by Raunaq Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Raunaq Ram mortgaged the land with possession to Amar Singh (the respondent No. 3 before us) on 22nd March 1950. During the year 1951-52, Amar Singh sold his interest in the land to Labhu Ram. Labhu Ram inducted Bir Singh, the father of the respondents 1 and 2, as a tenant in respect of the land in November 1953. After Labhu Rams death, his son Sat Paul sold his rights as a mortgagee which he had inherited from Labhu Ram to the respondents 1 and 2 by two deeds dated 14th January 1963 and 5th December 1966. The respondents 1 and 2, therefore, became the mortgagees of the entirety of the disputed land by 1966. In 1971, Bir Singh died. The respondents 1 and 2, as his sons, claim to have inherited his tenancy rights to the land.

3. In the meanwhile, Raunaq Ram had died leaving behind him his widow, Ram Piari (respondent No. 6) and four daughters, namely, Purni, Lachhmi, Sheela (the appellants 2 to 4) and Dayawanti (respondent No. 5). Raunaq Ram had executed a will in favour of his four daughters by which he bequeathed the land to them. All four daughters executed a second mortgage with possession of the land in favour of Puran Chand (appellant No. 1).

4. On 26th August 1971, the four appellants filed a suit for redemption of the prior mortgage against the respondents 1 and 2. The defence of the respondents 1 and 2 that they were entitled to continue in possession of the land as tenants of Labhu Ram was negatived on the ground that since the respondents had purchased Labhu Rams interest as mortgagee with possession of the land before their father expired, they did not inherit any tenancy rights as they could not be their own tenants. The suit was accordingly decreed in favour of the appellant No. 1 on 28th April, 1977 and he was given the right to redeem the first mortgage and obtain possession of the land upon payment of Rs. 18,000/- on or before 28th April, 1977. The Appellant No. 1 duly deposited Rs. 18,000/- in Court pursuant to the decree. The respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal but their appeal was dismissed. The respondents 1 and 2 then preferred a second appeal before the High Court.

5. During the pendency of the second appeal, two significant events took place. First, Puran Chands mortgage was wholly redeemed by the appellants 2 to 4 so that they resumed full ownership of the land. The second event was that Dayawanti, (the respondent No. 5 before us, the fourth daughter of Raunaq Ram), sold her share of the equity of redemption in the land in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 by two separate deeds dated 8th September, 1977 and 11th January, 1978. The respondents 1 and 2 filed an application claiming redemption against Puran Chand in respect of 1/4th of the land sold to them by Dayawanti before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the application. The respondents then filed two applications in the pending second appeal before the High Court, the first application was to bring on record the fact of the purchase of 1/4th share of the land from Dayawanti and; the second for being allowed to redeem the mortgage of Puran Chand in respect of such 1/4th interest.

6. The second appeal was disposed of by the High Court on 25th January, 1983. The 425 High Court held that despite the fact that the decree had been passed in favour of Puran Chand, because the appellants 2 to 4 had redeemed his mortgage, they were entitled to the benefit of the