Hari Shankar, J. - (1.) This revision arises out of a suit brought under Sec. 33 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. On 20th May, 1927 Hira Lal plaintiff, executed a mortgage by conditional sale in favour of Ramzani for a sum of Rs. 450. The mortgagee was put in possession of the mortgaged property which was a grove. One of the conditions of the mortgage was that in case the mortgagor, Hira Lal, was unable to redeem the grove within five years, the mortgage deed will be deemed to be a sale deed. On the basis of this mortgage, Hira Lal brought the suit for accounting alleging that Ramzani (mortgagee) and after him his legal representative (the defendants in the case) were in possession as a mortgagee and the entire mortgage money had been satisfied from the usufruct of the mortgaged grove and that nothing remained due under the mortgage.
(2.) Various pleas were raised in defence, but in this revision we are only Concerned with the plea to the effect that relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee had long ceased to exist as the mortgagor (Hira Lal) had agreed to give up his right to redeem the mortgage in suit in the year 1935. The main issue in the case was whether the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee is subsisting between the parties.
(3.) The learned Munsif, without considering the evidence of the defendants, observed that since the equity of redemption of the mortgagor had not been transferred by him by means of a sale deed, Ramzani (mortgagee) continued to hold the grove as a mortgagee. In other words his finding was that in the absence of a regular sale deed, any agreement between Ramzani and Hira Lal could not deprive Hira Lal of his rights to redeem the grove. He, therefore, decreed the suit.;