1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs Kanhaiyalal and Prahalad against the appellate decree of the learned District Judge Bhilwara upholding the decree of the learned Town Munsiff Bhilwara, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for redemption of two Nohras and three shops situated in the town of Bhilwara. Jamnalal, defendant No. 1 was made the principal defendant and Chhaganlal and Pannalal were also made defendants Ganeshram and Andiram were also made defendants No. 4 and 5 on the allegation that the defendant No. 1 had given the possession of one of the shops in dispute to them. It would be convenient to give the pedigree given by the plaintiffs in their plaint before proceeding any further.

Sawantram

Jagannath

Kajodimal Jankidas Kishanlal

Shivkaran|| Barmakaran|| Ramkaran(died issueless) Pannalal (Defdt. No. 3) Chhaganlal (Defdt No. 2)

Haridas|| Mohanlal (Adopted son)

Prahlad (PI. No. 2)

Kanhaiyalal(Pl. No. 1) Mohanlal(Adopted by Barmakaran)

2. The plaintiffs originally brought their suit on the allegation that one of the Nohras in suit was usufruc-tuarily mortgaged by the ancestors of the plaintiffs with the ancestor of the defendant No. 1 about Samvat 1968 for a sum of Rs. 300/-, and three shops in suit were usufruc-tuarily mortgaged in about Samvat 1942 with Messrs Hansraj Radha Kishan of Ratlam (to be herein after referred to as Ratlamwalas) by Shiv-Karan and Haridas for a sum of Rs. 300 - The said three shops came into the possession of defendant No. 1 Jamnalal by a submortgage from the Ratlamwalas. As regards the second Nohra in suit it was alleged that in about Samvat 1963 it was usufruc-tuarily mortgaged with defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs. 400/- by Chhaganlal and Pannalal defendants No. 2 and 3.

It was further alleged that the whole of the property in suit came into the possession of the plaintiffs ancestors by way of possessory mortgage from certain Suranas who sold it to the plaintiffs father and grand-father in Samvat 1958. The defendant No. 2 and 3 therefore had no right in these properties but they were allowed to mortgage the Nohra simply because they required money for their fathers expenses.

3. Subsequently an application for amendment of the plaint was made on the 19th September 1944 to the following effect :—

(i) Kanhaiyalal successor of Ratlamwalas to be added as defendant No. 6.

(ii) The date of the mortgage deed by Suranas in favour of the plaintiffs ancestors to be given as Magh Vadi 6, Samvat, 1922 and the amount of mortgage money as Rs. 957/-.

(iii) The date of mortgage of three shops by the plaintiffs ancestors to Ratlamwalas to be given as Kartik Sudi 1, Samwat 1941 and the amount of mortgage money as Rs. 1000/-. It would thus be seen that by this amendment the three shops were alleged to have been mortgaged to Ratlamwalas on Kartik Sudi 2, Samwat 1947, instead of Samwat 1942 as originally alleged and the amount of the mortgage money as Rs. 1000/-instead of Rs. 300/-, thus bringing the total amount of the mortgage money of all the property in dispute to Rs. 1700/- instead of Rs. 1000/-.

4. This amendment was allowed by the order dated 20th September, 1944.

5. On the 27th October 1944, the defendants No. 4 and 5 applied that their brother Rambilas be also made a party, and consequently by an order dated the same day Rambilas was arrayed as defendant No. 7.

6. The defendant No. 4 and 5 in their written statement dated 1st November, 1944 pleaded that they had nothing to do with the suit and that they bad purchased two of the shops in suit for a sum of Rs. 1000/-from defendant No. 1 out of which Rs. 500/- had been paid as earnest money and the balance was still due. The sale deed had not been executed but they had been put in possession.

7. On the 15th November, 1944 the defendant No. 1 filed his written statement alleging that all the 3 shops were his own property and the allegation about their having been mortgaged by plaintiffs ancestors was not true. It was also alleged that only a mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document