- (1.) ONE Khedu was the tenant of plots nos. 141 and 152. He mortgaged these plots with passession to one Bhuttoo by means of the mortgage deed dated 14-6-1908. Some time after the mortgage Khedu died. His son Deep Chand made an application under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act for the redemption of the mortgage on the allegation that the mortgage debt was paid up from the usufruct of the mortgaged property. He also claimed possession over the above plots. Besides the mortgagee Bhuttoo one other person, viz. , Jaddu Koeri whose name was entered in the revenue papers over the aforesaid plots was also impleaded as a defendant in the case on the allegation that he had been set up by the mortgagee and his name in the revenue papers was merely fictitious and that in fact the mortgagee Bhuttoo was in possession of the mortgaged property.
(2.) THE mortgagee Bhuttoo did not contest the suit. Jaddu Koeri alone contested the suit and his defence was that the plaintiff Deep Chand was not entitled to redemption as Khedu had sold his equity of redemption in respect of the aforesaid plots to Azim and Brijraj Tewari and they had reliquished their rights in favour of the zamindar who admitted him as the tenant of the disputed plots.
(3.) THE trial court framed seven issues in the case which are as follows : 1. Whether the plaintiff is a tenant and entitled to sue? 2. Whether Bhuttoo is the mortgagee? 3. Whether the mortgage as alleged exists? 4. Whether defendant No. 2 is tenant? 5. Whether the mortgage money has been paid up. If not how much is due? 6. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? 7. Whether the suit is barred by Section 10, Civil P. C. ?;