The court clarified that Ext. B-2 was a partition deed, not a new mortgage, and rejected claims for compensation for improvements and arrears of rent under Ext. B-3.

1. By Ext. B-39 dated 8-1-1935, the two plaintiffs, their since deceased father Subraya Bhatta,Subraya Bhatta's brother ShankernarayanaBhatta, and Shankernarayana Bhatta's sons and grandson, members of a then undivided Hindu joint family, usufructuarily mortgaged the properties described in schedule Al and A2 to the plaint to the 1st defendant as the manager of his joint family for a sum of Rs. 11,000. Under the terms of the document, the mortgage was redeemable in the Vishu Sankramana of the year 1965 on payment of the sum of Rs. 11,000 and the value of improvements effected by the mortgagee. Three years later, under Ext. B-1 dated 9-3-1938, one branch of the mortgagor's family, namely, Shankernarayana Bhatta's Branch sold its half share in the equity of redemption to the 1st defendant, and "out of the consideration of Rs., 6,700 a sum of Rs. 5,500 went in discharge of half the mortgage money due under Ext. B-39. By the partition deed, Ext. A-5 dated 25-2-1947 in the 1st defendant's family, the entire rights of the family in the properties comprised in Ext. B-39 were allotted to the 1st defendant and his three sons, defendants 2 to 4, so that they became the full owners of an undivided half share in the property and held the remaining half share on usufructuary mortgage under Ext. B-39 for the reduced sum of Rs. 5500. In 1948 disputes arose between defendants 1 to 4 on the one side and the plaintiffs and their father (whom I shall compendiously call merely the plaintiffs) on the other, and, after the exchange of notices under Exts. A2 and A-3 dated 15 -2-1948 and 7-3-1948 respectively, the disputes were settled with the aid of mediators; and the partition deed, Ext. B-2, and the lease deed, Ext. B-3, both of the date of 22-6-1948, were drawn up accordingly. Under the partition deed, Ext. B2, the property was divided by metes and bounds into two equal shares. The first share comprising the properties described in schedule A2 to the plaint was allotted to defendants 1 to 4 and they became the full owners thereof. The second share, described in schedule Al to the plaint, was allotted to the plaintiffs and they were to hold it subject to the usufructuary mortgage, Ext. B-39, for the rest of its term, namely, upto Vishu Sankramana of 1965, and were to redeem it on the due date on payment of the mortgage amount of Rs, 5500. Meanwhile, for the rest of the term of: the mortgage, they were to enjoy the property (viz., the property in schedule Al to the plaint and not in schedule A2 as wrongly stated in the plaint and in the judgment of the lower court) under the lease, Ext. B-3, entered into on the same day between themselves on the one hand and the 1st defendant on the other. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in schedule Al and defendants 1 to 4 of the property in schedule A2. Then in March 1949, the present plaintiffs (their father had died meanwhile) filed O.P. 13/1949 under S.83 of the) Transfer of Property Act and, depositing a sum of Rs. 5500 into court, sought premature redemption of the mortgage over their property, viz., the property in schedule Al, taking advantage of the new S.9 A introduced into Madras Act IV of 1938 by Madras Act XXIII of 1948. Defendants 1 to 4 having refused redemption, the plaintiffs filed their present suit praying for a decree, directing an account to be taken of the amount due under the mortgage, dated 8-1-1935 (Ext. B-39) as broken and split up by the purchase of the half share of the mortgaged properties by the mortgagee and as modified by the partition deed, dated 22-6-1948 (Ext. B-2), and declaring that a sum of Rs. 5500 alone is liable to be paid for redemption of the outstanding part of the plaint mortgage and further declaring that on payment of the said sum of Rs. 5500 which has already been tendered into court that the mortgage stands redeemed and directing defendants I to 4 to execute the necessary deed of reconveyance at the cost of the plaintiffs"