JUDGMENT

Misra, A J C - This appeal arises out of a suit for possession brought by the plaintiff-appellant with respect to a 7 pies 10 kirants share of patti Gopal Singh, situated in mauza Sheikhpur. The plaintiff claims possession on the ground that the said share originally belonged to one Jalpa Singh, that after his death his son, Jagdamba Singh, sold it to one Ganga Ahir on the 7th January, 1908 and his son, Gur Charan, subsequently sold the same share to the plaintiff on the 7th January, 1920, both these deeds of sale being registered. In defence it was contended by the defendants that they were lawfully in possession of the property under a registered deed of possessory mortgage, dated the 25th August, 1876 executed by Jalpa Singh in favour of their predecessor-in-title, Mathura Singh, for Rs. 170 (Exhibit A-1). Two unregistered deeds of further charge were also set up in defence; one dated the 22nd July, 1881 for Rs. 15 carrying interest at the rate of Rs. 1 per cent, per mensem (Exhibit A-2) and the other, dated the 19th July, 1886 for Rs. 40 carrying interest at the same rate (Exhibit A-3). Both these deeds were executed by Mt. Makhama, the widow of Jalpa Singh, and Jagdamba Singh, the son of Jalpa Singh in favour of Mathura Singh. The contention of the defendants was that the plaintiff could not get possession of the property until he paid the three mortgages stated above. The genuineness of all the three deeds set up by the defendants was denied by the plaintiff and formed the subject-matter of trial in the Court of first instance. The finding of that Court was in favour of the defendants and it was held that all the three deeds were genuine. That question is no more in dispute in second appeal.

2. The Munsif (North), Unao, who tried the case, decreed the plaintiff's claim for proprietary possession of the 7 pies 15 kirants share on payment into Court of Rs. 170 by the plaintiff within six months from the date of his decree. He disallowed the defendants' claim under the deeds of further charge (Exhibits A-2 and A-3). His finding was that the deeds did not constitute deeds of further charge but were simple money bonds and could not therefore be enforced against the plaintiff. On appeal the Subordinate Judge of Unao disagreed with the finding of the Munsif and came to the conclusion that the deeds (Exhibits A-2 and A-3) were deeds of further charge. He therefore modified the decree of the first Court by ordering that the amount due under these two deeds should also be paid by the plaintiff in addition to the amount ordered to be paid by the first Court. The plaintiff now appeals to this Court and two questions have been discussed at great length before me. The first question is whether the deeds (Exhibits A-2 and A-3) constitute deeds of further charge and, secondly, whether the plaintiff is bound to pay these deeds, he being a bona fide transferee for value.

3. The deeds in dispute are almost similar in language and provide for the payment of principal with interest at the rate of 1 per cent. p.m. at the time of redemption of pati Sheikhpur held by the credit or under the mortgage-deed dated the 25th August, 1876. It is expressly stated in the deeds that the money due on them, that is principal and interest, would be first paid and then the mortgaged property would be redeemed. In the end it is stated that the deeds were written as "zamima rehan-nama," that is deeds appurtenant to the deed of mortgage. I have considered the language of the two deeds very carefully and have come to the same conclusion as has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal. The deeds have to be read as a whole and not piecemeal. It appears to me that the mortgagor when executing these two deeds clearly intended that there should be a consolidation. The condition that the money due under these deeds was to be paid and then redemption of the principal mortgage effected shows clearly that intention on the part of the mortgagor.