LODHA, J.—This is a defendant-mortgagees second appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of mortgage in respect of a house described in para No. 1 of the plaint and situated in the town of Dholpur.

2. The facts not now in dispute are that the house in question was jointly owned by the plaintiff-respondent Smt. Chhoti and respondent-defendant No. 2 Smt. Devalia, whose husbands Lok and Chhitariya respectively were brothers. After their husbands had died Smt. Chhoti and Smt. Devalia, mortgaged the house for a sum of 1000/- in favour of the appellant-Defendant No. 1 Ganpatia by a registered deed dated 5-6-1962 The mortgagee rented out the mortgaged house to the mortgagors and the rent agreed was equal to the interest on the mortgage money. It further appears that Smt. Devlia sold her undivided half share in the property to the mortgagee Ganpatia. On 23-3-1963 plaintiff Smt. Chhoti filed suit for redemption of the whole house against Ganpatia and impleaded Smt. Devlia also as a proforma-defendant. The learned trial court held that the plaintiff can claim only partial redemption of the property to the extent of her share on payment of Rs. 500/- and directed a preliminary decree to be drawn in accordance with O. XXXIV, r. 7 C.P.C. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Judge No. 1, Bharatpur modified the judgment and decree of the trial court as follows :

"This appeal partly succeeds and is hereby allowed to the effect that the plaintiff shall be entitled to redeem her half share in the property on payment of Rs. 500/-as mortgage money. She shall, however, be entitled to recover possession of the whole of the property on payment of the above mortgage debt. On payment of Rs. 500/- by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1, the latter shall recovery half of the property to the plaintiff and shall also hand over possession of the whole of the property to her. In case of default in payment of the mortgage amount by the plaintiff within a period of 3 months, she shall be debarred from redeeming the property in future."

Two points have been submitted for decision :

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the whole mortgage ?

(ii) In case the plaintiff is held entitled to redeem only her half share should a decree for partition be granted in this very suit ?

3. Learned counsel for the appellant mortgagee has urged that a suit for partial redemption can be decreed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has relied on V. Ramaswami vs. Kailasa Thevar (l), Ghasiram vs. Hiralal (2), Sidheshvar vs. Ganpatrao (3), Khiarajmal vs. Naim (4) and Subba Rao vs. Balusu Buchi (5). On the other hand learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent has urged that the integrity and indivisibility of the mortgage must be maintained and the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the whole mortgage. He has placed reliance on Mamu vs. Kuttu (6), Subba Rao vs. Balusu Buchi(5), Mirza Yadalli Beg vs. Tukaram (7), Ghulam Sarwar Khan vs. Abdul Wahab Khan(8), Ramaswami vs. Subramania(9), Alekha vs. Jagabandbu(lO), More Joshi vs. Ramchandra Dinkar Joshi (11).

4. In V. Ramaswami vs. Kailasa Thevar(l), their Lordships observed that the general law is that a mortgage decree is one and indivisible and exceptions to this rule are admitted in special circumstances where the integrity of the mortgagee has been disrupted at the instance of the mortgagee himself, for example when there is severance of the interests of the mortgagors with the consent of the mortgagee or a portion of the equity of redemption is vested in the latter. These observations were, however, made by the learned Judges while dealing with the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, and it was held that the said Act is a special statute which is giving relief not to debtors in general but only to a specified class of debtors viz. those who are agriculturists as defined in the Act and to this extent it was held that it trenches upon general law.

5. In Ghasiram vs. Hiralal(2) the learned Judge held that when there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document