Randhi Singh, J. - (1.) This is a Defendants' first appeal arising out of a suit brought under Sec. 33 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act by a person claiming to be a mortgagor of certain property, for accounting.
(2.) Shabzade Singh and Shrimati Chet Kunwar executed an usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of one Ganga Bakhsh Singh on the 18th March, 1901, for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -. Most of the amount borrowed under the mortgage was left in deposit with the mortgagee for payment to various creditors of the mortgagors and it was also stipulated that if the mortgagee paid anything in excess of Rs. 15,000/ -, he would be entitled to get interest at six per cent on that amount and that amount would be payable along with the mortgage money at the time of redemption. The mortgagors' equity of redemption and the mortgagee's rights transferred hands from time to time, but it is not necessary to make a mention of all those transactions in view of the points raised in this appeal. The Plaintiff claiming to have acquired an interest in the equity of redemption from the mortgagors brought the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, against the persons holding at that moment the mortgagee rights The Plaintiff had purchased the entire share of Shahzide Singh in Lahrapur by means of a sale deed dated the 2nd July, 1938, and he had also acquired one -sixth share in the equity of redemption in the other village sultanpur from one Jadu Nath Singh, The remaining 5/6 this share in the equity of redemption in respect of village Sultanpur was owned by Defendants Nos. 13 to 15. The Plaintiff claimed to be an agriculturist and as such entitled to maintain a suit under Sec. 33 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act.
(3.) The suit was contested by Defendants Nos. 1 to 6. 10 and 11, as also by Defendants Nos. 13 and 14. Defendant No. 14 subsequently withdraw his contest. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, 1 and 11 did not file any written statement but they adopted the written statement filed by Defendant No. 13, Jadu Nath Singh. It was alleged on behalf of Jadu Nath Singh that Srimati Chet Kunwar was owner of a half share of the property which was the subject of the mortgage in her capacity of a Hindu widow and that her rights passed after her death to her daughter and thereafter to her daughter's sons. It was also denied that the Plaintiff was an agriculturist and as such entitled to maintain a suit for accounting under Sec. 3.3 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. Various other pleas were raised and a number of issues were framed by the trial Court, but, in view of the arguments advanced before us, it is not necessary to refer to the other points of contest raised by the contesting Defendants in the Court below.;