S.A. Naqvi, J.

Appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 25-1-1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Sheopurkalan in civil suit No. 9-A/89 whereby the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs for redemption has been decreed.

The facts of the case in brief are that plaintiffs and defendants No. 7 to 9 mortgaged their house situated at Shivpuri road Town, Sheopur for a loan of Rs. 20,000/- vide registered deed dated 1-1-1974. The house comprises of four shops and a hall. Manikchand has died. Respondents No. 8 to 16 are the legal representatives of Manikchand. The main conditions of the mortgage deed were that the house is mortgaged for a period of four years. The house is to be redeemed in this period after the payment of the principle amount and the interest i.e. at the rate of interest 1.5 paisa per month which amounts to Rs. 300/- per month. The rent which is to be fetched by the property shall be adjusted in the interest. Remaining interest will be payable per month. The rent of the hall which is Rs. 110/- shall be adjusted towards interest. The rent accruable from the four shops will be adjusted towards interest. Meelabchand is a tenant in two shops at the rent is Rs. 30/- per month. The mortgagee shall be entitled to realize the rent from him and the rent note shall be executed in favour of the mortgagee and the mortgagor shall get the rent note executed. The mortgagee shall be entitled to recover the arrears of rent by filing a suit and shall also be entitled to rent the premises to other persons. Gulabchand died on 2-1-1985 and the defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 are legal heirs of Gulabchand. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 7 to 9 have entered into an oral partition whereby mortgaged property has fallen into the share of the plaintiff alone. The plaintiff has informed the defendant No. 1 Dulichand and the late Gulabchand vide registered letter No. 91 dated 16-1-1975 which was received by them on 17-1-75. The defendants No. 7 to 9 being necessary parties are made proforma defendants in the suit.

The rent of the hall was fixed at the rate of Rs. 110/- per month by Dulichand and Gulabchand themselves vide the mortgage deed. The mortgagees are also realizing the rent of the four shops. The two shops are with the defendant No. 9 and the other two shops are with the defendant No. 10 Manikchand on rent. The rent of the hall has been agreed to be enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month. The defendants have rented the two shops of Meelabchand to Manikchand at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The defendants are in the business of money lending. They are neither sending the annual accounts nor are keeping separate accounts required by the Money Lending Act. The defendants No. 1 to 6 and the deceased Dulichand are not entitled to the interest for which the record is not kept as per the provisions of the Money Lending Act and for that period the rent of the hall and of the shops is liable to be adjusted in the principle amount. The defendants are not entitled to realize the rent more than at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum. Plaintiff is ready to realize the amount legally recoverable from him to the defendants No. 1 to 6. The plaintiff is also entitled to the vacant possession of the hall and the four shops on redemption. Plaintiff asked the defendants No. 1 and 2 to redeem the property after taking reasonable amount. They did not agree to the request and plaintiff filed the suit.

Defendants No. 2 and 3 submitted their joint written statement. They admitted the fact of the situation of the mortgaged property and conditions of the mortgage deed. They submitted that an immovable property can only be partitioned by a registered deed and not by an oral partition. The property was built by plaintiffs father Manikchand and property was not an ancestral property. Thus, the partition between the plaintiff and the defendants No. 7 to 9 is not permissible. The partition was refuted. They further submitted that s