Modi, J.—This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for money which has been dismissed by both courts below.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie within a short compass. The plaintiffs case was that the defendants respondents borrowed a sum of Rs. 700/-from them on the 20th December, 1951 (the date mentioned toy the learned Civil Judge in his judgment under appeal as 20th October, 1951 is wrong) and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1/8/- per cent, per mensem thereon. As a security for this loan., the defendants mortgaged a Bara belonging to them (and which is fully described in the document Exd dated the 20th December, 1951) to the plaintiffs. It was further stipulated in this document that if the defendants should fail to pay the entire amount of the loan together with interest due on it at the end of two years from the date of the loan, the plaintiffs would be entitled to take possession of the Bara. The document containing the terms afore-mentioned was somehow not registered, and, therefore, the plaintiffs instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, and claimed a simple money decree for Rs. 700/- as principal plus a further sum of Rs. 378/- as interest at the stipulated rate and Rs. 1/8/- as notice charges, the total amounting to Rs. 1079/8/. The suit was instituted in the court of the Munsiff Dholpur on the 16th December, 1954.

3. The defendants resisted the suit. They eventually admitted that they had executed the document which was the foundation of the suit of the plaintiffs, but they denied that they had received any consideration for it. The defendants further contended that the document of the 20th December, 1951, being unregistered was inadmissible in evidence and that no personal liability whatsoever on the footing of that document could be fastened on them in law.

4. The trial court framed four issues on the pleadings set out above. These were as follows :—

(1) Whether Ex. 1 was admissible in evidence ?

(2) If the decision of issue No. 1 be against the defendants, then was Ex. 1 not supported by consideration ?

(3) Was the plaintiffs suit not maintainable on the footing of Ex. 1, and

(4) To what relief the plaintiffs were entitled ?

The trial court took up issues Nos.1 and 3 as preliminary issues, and held on the first issue that the document Ex. 1 was inadmissible in evidence, and, on the third issue, that Ex. 1 did not contain any personal covenant to pay and dismissed the plaintiffs suit without deciding the issue as to consideration. The plaintiffs went up in appeal which came for disposal before the Civil Judge, Dholpur. The learned Judge upheld the decision of the trial court and also dismissed the suit Court.

5. It is to be regretted that the defendants respondents have not cared to appear in this Court in spite of service.

6. It may be stated at the outset that the finding of the courts below that the document Ex. 1 was compulsory registerable, and, therefore, not admissible in evidence has not been questoined before me in this appeal and, therefore, it must be accepted that finding is correct. This document would however be admissible for the collateral purpose of seeing whether thereby the defendants entered into a personal covenant to pay or not.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has strenuously contended before me that, me courts below had fallen into a grave error of law in holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a simple money decree on the footing of the document in question. Now, the main ground which seems to have prevailed with the learned Civil Judge in the court of first appeal in coming to the conclusion to which he did was that the document in question purported to create a usufructuary or an anomalous mortgage and therefore the personal liability of the mortgagees contained in the earlier part of Ex. 1 was negatived by its subsequent part wherein it was agreed between the parties that, if the defendants failed to pay the entire amount of the loan together wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document