R.S. VERMA, J—The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows: As per the plaint averments, one Daulat Ram was the owner of plot no. 143 and half portion of plot no. 144 situated at Bazar no. 3, Bhopalganj Mandi. Bhilwara. He mortgaged the aforesaid plots to Bala Bux, Kedai mal Banshi Dhar, Ram Narain and Bhagat Ram, all sons of Shri Ram Agarwal, on 24.3.43 for a sum of Rs. 2200/-. The mortgage-deed was registered on 26.3,43. The possession of the aforesaid plots was transferred to the mortgagees. One of the stipulations in the mortgage-deed was that the mortgagees could make such constructions on the said plots as they liked and the plots could be re-deemed only on payment of the mortgage money and the costs of improvement. It is averred that on 24. 3. 43 itself mortgagor Daulat Ram executed a separate agreement in favour of the mortgagees and reiterated the stipulations that the mortgagees would be free to raise constructions on the plots as they liked and after completion of the house on the plots the mortgagor shall receive Rs. 11/- from the mortgagees and shall execute a sale-deed in respect of the aforesaid property. It is alleged that the mortgagees raised constructions upon the said plots between the years 1943 and 1947.

2. It was further averred that the mortgagees paid a sum of Rs. 11/- to mortgagor Daulat Ram on 17.12.47 and Daulat Ram made an oral sale of the disputed property in favour of the mortgagees under the Mewar Laws and the mortgagees became full owners of the suit property and since then they were in possession of the said Haveli as its owners.

3. It was further averred that on 13. 11. 47 a partition took place amongst mortgagees and by this partition the suit Haveli fell to the share of Bala Bux and Kedar Mal. A declaration was got registered in respect of aforesaid partition on 9.11. 52. It was averred that plaintiffs no. 1 to 4 were sons of Kedar Mai and plaintiffs no. 5 to 8 were sons of Bala Bux.

4. It was further averred that on 2.7.1960 Daulat Ram made a gift of the equity of redemption in respect of the aforesaid mortgage in favour of defendant no. 1 Smt. Kanchan Bai even though the aforesaid property was ancestral in the hands of Daulat Ram and Daulat Ram could not have made a gift of the aforesaid property to Smt. Kanchan Bai. Moreover, the plaintiffs predecessors in interest Bala Bux and Kadar Mal having become full owners of the property, for this reason also Daulat Ram could not have made a valid gift in favour of Kanchan Bai

5. It was further averred that one Habib Chhipa obtained a money decree against mortgagor Daulat Ram. In execution of the said decree, namely, execution case no. 4/16,Habib Chhipa got the aforesaid Haveli attached. Against this attachment, the plaintiffs filed an objection petition under 0.21 rule 58 C.P.C. This objection petition was allowed on 13.4.1964 by the District Judge, Bhilwara and the Haveli was released from attachment. This judgment became final between the parties as Daulat Ram did not institute any suit under O. 21 Rule 63 C.P.C. to challenge the said order. It is averred that in this objection petition mortgagor Daulat Ram had raised an objection that he had not paid Rs.1l/- in pursuance of agreement dated 24.3.43 but this contention of Daulat Ram was not accepted. It was averred that the plaintiffs relying upon the decision of the learned District Judge did not institute any suit for specific performance of the contract of sale entered into between the mortgagor and the mortgagees.

6. It was further averred that on 12.4.65, defendant no 1 Smt. Kanchan Bai instituted a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property. This suit was decreed on 21.9.81, where it was held that the mortgagees had paid a sum of Rs. ll/-to go mortgagor Daulat Ram on 17.12.47. In that very suit it was held that the agreement to sale dated 24.3.43 was not a colg on equity of redemption. In that very case the High Court held that reley by making a payment of Rs. 11/- to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document