A term of 99 years for redemption of a mortgage is not unreasonable or oppressive in the circumstances of the case, where the property is small and of low value, the mortgage money is also small, and the mortgagor has agreed to the long term in order to allow the mortgagee to make improvements to the property.

RANAWAT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order of a Single Judge of this Court dated 15-101957, remanding the suit to the first Court for trying other issues and then passing a decree for redemption of the mortgaged property.

( 2 ) CHANDAN Mal and Pukhraj filed a suit against Saleh Raj and three others in the Court of the Munsiff Jalore, on 18-12-1951, for redemption of the property described in para, 2 (e) of the plaint on payment of an amount of Rs. 269-8-0 in Indian coin. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that their ancestors mortgaged the said property with the aricestors of the defendants in Sambat year 1936 Kartik Badi 3, for an amount of Rs. 430-5-0 Akheshahi equivalent to Rs. 269-80 in Indian coin, by way of possessory mortgage with the stipulation that the mortgage money shall carry no interest and the property shall bear no rent. The plaintiffs prayed that a decree for redemption be passed against the defendants on payment of the mortgage-money. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the term of the mortgage being of 99 years and the suit having been filed before the expiry of the said term was premature. They also claimed cost of improvements to the time of Rs. 1,169-8-0 in addition to the mortgage-money. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit as premature and his judgment dated 23-10-1952 was upheld on appeal by the Civil Judge, Balotra on 23-7-1953. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to this Court. It was heard and decided by a Single Judge as mentioned above. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the term of 99 years fixed by the mortgage deed was by itself an unreasonable restriction on the right of the plaintiffs to redeem their property. In addition to the term of the mortgage being unreasonable, the learned Judge also observed that the following terms in the mortgage-deed were oppressive and the length of the term, coupled with those conditions, made the said term of 99 years a clog on the equity of redemption.

(i) An almost unlimited right was given to the mortgagees to make such improvements as they liked in the suit house. The number of medis and maliyas to be constructed were not mentioned and the quantum of expenditure to be incurred by the mortgagees was also not limited;

(ii) The mortgagors agreed to execute a fresh, deed for the amount of the expenditure incurred by the mortgagees for the improvements of the mortgaged property and in the event of their failure to do so, they agreed to pay the cost of improvements at the time of the redemption as evidenced by entries in the books of account of the mortgagees;

(iii) The amount of the loan secured by the mortgage was of the value of Rs. 270/- in Indian coin.

( 3 ) IN this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Gangadhar v. Shankar Lal, AIR 1958 SC 770, and has argued that their Lordships of the Supreme Court, without expressing any opinion as to whether a long term by itself may be regarded as clog on the equity of redemption held that a term of 85 years, was not unreasonable in the circumstances of that case. It was argued that there is not much difference in the term of 85 years and that of 99 years and it was therefore not proper for the learned Civil Judge to hold that the term of 99 years for redemption of the mortgage was by itself unreasonable. As regards the circumstances mentioned by the learned Single Judge in arriving at the conclusion that the terms of the mortgage were oppressive, the learned counsel stated that the learned Single Judge mis-read the mortgage-deed inasmuch as only one medi and one malia was specified in the mortgage deed to be constructed by the mortgagor and the learned Single Judge erroneously thought that the deed authorised the mortgagee to construct as many medis and maliyas as he chose to make. It was also urged that the plot of land was very small, measuring 16 gaj x 6 gaj -- a gaj is equivalent to 3 feet. As regards the condition