Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application for review of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court.

2. The facts, which have given rise to this application, are these. A suit had been brought by Hari Ram and his son, Sukanraj, for redemption of a mortgage, against Mohan Lal and Mst. Nathi. Mohan Lal was the original mortgagee, while Mst. Nathi was the person in possession of the house to be redeemed at the time the suit was filed. The case of the applicants was that Mst. Nathi was merely a submortgagee, and they were, therefore, entitled to possession from her. Mst. Nathis case, on the other hand, was that the house had been sold orally by Hari Ram to the original mortgagee, Mohan Lal, and thereafter Mohan Lal had mortgaged the house to her, and later made a sale-deed in her favour. As such, she claimed to be the owner of the house.

3. The trial court framed as many as ten issues, of which two, namely, issues Nos. 1 and 6, are relevant for present purposes. The first issue was—

"Whether the plaintiff Hari Ram as manager of the joint Hindu family sold the house in dispute to the defendant No. 1 for the benefit of the family in Sawan, Smt. 1992?"

The sixth issue was—

"Whether the plaintiffs paid interest up to the end of Svt. 1995?"

The trial court found that Hari Ram had not sold the house to Mohan Lal. It also found that the plaintiffs had paid interest up to the end of Smt. 1995. Eventually it decreed the suit.

4. There was an appeal to this Court by Mst. Nathi, which came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of Honble Gupta J. and Honble Tri-lochan Dutt J. The judgment of the Bench, after reciting the facts, mentions the finding of the trial court on the two issues given above, namely, that there was no sale in favour of Mohan Lal, and that interest had been paid up to Smt. 1995. The Bench then went on to consider the first issue, and came to the conclusion that the sale in favour of Mohan Lal had been proved. Thereupon, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was dismissed. No finding was given on the issue, whether interest had been paid up to Smt. 1995, as the learned Judge did not think it necessary to go into the other points raised after their decision on the question of sale to Mohan Lal.

5. Thereafter the present application for review made, and the of the judgment was learned Judges, who decided the appeal, issued notice. As the two learned Judges are no longer Judges of this Court, the present application has come up before us for decision as to whether a review should be granted.

6. The contention on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants is three-fold. He urges that while deciding issue No.1, the learned Judges did not refer to certain material documents, which were on the record, and had been relied upon by the trial court in deciding this issue. These documents are the mortgage deed by Mohan Lal in favour of Mst. Nathi of Asarh Budi 12, Smt. 1992, and a receipt, Ex. P.1, from Mohan Lal to the applicants showing payment of interest upto Smt. 1995. Further, it is urged that though the learned Judges decided that Hari Ram had made] a sale in favour of Mohan Lal they did not decide the other parts of the first issue, namely, whether Hari Ram was member of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his son Sukanraj. and had sold the house for the benefit of the family as its manager. Lastly, it has been urged that issue No. 6 was very intimately connected with issue No. 1, inasmuch as it was impossible that Hari Ram should have continued paying interest up to Smt. 1955, if he had sold the house to Mohan Lal in Smt. 1992, and the learned Judges should have decided that issue also along with issue No.1, and that the position now is that though the finding of the trial court on issue No. 1 as to sale has been set aside, the finding as to payment of interest up to Smt. 1995 has not been set aside, and this leads to illogicality.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party, however, contends that what the applicants want i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document