Govinda Menon, J.-The appellants in this appeal are defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 200 of 1949 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara who may be compendiously known as the mortgagees, while the plaintiffs 1 to 7 and defendants 24 to 26 represent the family of the mortgagors. The other defendants are tenants who have been impleaded as necessary parties to the litigation. The action in the Court below was for the redemption of a mortgage executed by the family of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants’ family evidenced by Exhibit A-1 dated 15th June, 1909 for a sum of Rs. 18,999. The mortgage was usufructuary in character and the mortgagees were put in possession of the properties. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to detail at any length with the terms and conditions of the mortgage especially since in the Court below the right of the plaintiffs to redeem Exhibit A-1 was not questioned. The main contest was with regard to the value of improvements payable to the mortgagees in possession which according to their written statement amounted to Rs. 36,290 and the main issues in the case related to the quantum of compensation for ascertaining which a commissioner had been appointed by the trial Court who submitted his report. The report of the commissioner dated 4th June, 1950, is a lengthy one and it deals with various matters such as the number of trees in the different plots, their size and age and the value to be paid for them. On the whole the commissioner found that the value of the improvements on redemption would amount to Rs. 22,068-14-0. Objections to this report was filed by defendants 1 to 5 as well as by the plaintiffs. Whereas the defendants claimed enhanced value, the plaintiffs submitted that the commissioner’s valuation of the improvements was very high. The memos of objection to the commissioner’s report by the parties had been forwarded to the commissioner for his remarks and for his further report which he submitted on 22nd July, 1950. The various objections raised by the plaintiffs were adverted to and the commissioner submitted his remarks on them.

In this state of things on 30th September, 1950, the advocates appearing on both sides submitted a joint memo. to the Court which is to the following effect:-

“The parties submit that they will abide by the decision of the Court on the issue raised in the suit, after local inspection and perusal of the documentary evidence in the case. They have no oral evidence to be adduced.”

Mangalore,

30th September, 1950. (Sd.) G. K. Govinda Bhatt,

Advocate for the plaintiffs.

(Sd.) M. A. Kamath,

Advocate for sixth defendant.

(Sd.) ........

Advocate for defendants 24 to 26.

From this, it is seen that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants affixed their signature to this joint statement but that their advocates on their behalf have signed and filed the joint memo. into the Court. There was some dispute at the Bar as to whether the parties consented to the filing of this joint statement and the counsel appearing before us on both sides did not dispute the fact that each of the advocates who had signed the joint statement had the previous consent and approval of his client or clients for signing the joint memo. and filing it into the Court. We, therefore, take it that with the tacit and express consent of the parties the joint statement was filed by which the Court was asked to make a local inspection and peruse the documentary evidence in the case before coming to a conclusion and the parties agreed to abide by that conclusion. Accordingly, the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to the locality and stayed there for three days, inspected the various items of properties thoroughly and made copious notes of his inspection. In the words of the learned Judge what happened was as follows:-

“Eventually both the parties agreed by joint memo. dated 30th September, 1950, that they would abide by the decision of the Court on these issues a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document