- (1.) THIS appeal and the connected revision arise out of two connected suits, namely, original suit No. 27 of 1945, connected with original suit No. 297 of 1945. Both the suits were consolidated in the trial Court and were disposed of by one common judgment. On appeal the lower appellate court also disposed of the two connected appeals by one common judgment. Against the judgment of the lower appellate court the instant second appeal and the connected revision have been filed. The second appeal arises out of original suit No. 297 of 1945 and the connected revision arises out of the original suit No. 27 of 1945. The said suit No. 27 of 1945 was initiated by an application under S. 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act whereby the plaintiffs claimed possession over the mortgaged property after redemption of certain mortgages. Against the judgment whereby the said application was disposed of an appeal lay to the lower appellate court but, it seems, no second appeal lay against the judgment of the lower appellate court and hence a revision was filed against the judgment of the lower appellate court. On the other hand, original suit No. 297 of 1945 happened to be a regular suit between the parties which resulted in a decree and, therefore, the connected second appeal was filed in this Court against the judgment of the lower appellate court.
(2.) THE brief facts involved in the litigation are these : On 28th May, 1936, fourteen persons executed a sale deed for Rs. 16,000/- in favour of Rajnarain and Udainarain who are the defendants-appellants before me in the second appeal and applicants Nos. 1 and 2 in the connected revision. THEse two persons were defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the original suit No. 297 of 1945 wherein the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed dated 28th May, 1936. THEse two persons, namely, Rajnarain and Udainarain were the applicants Nos. 1 and 2 in the redemption suit No. 27 of 1945. By the aforesaid sale deed 43 bighas and odd fixed rate tenancy land was sold to the said two purchasers and the bulk of the sale consideration was left with the vendees for redeeming the prior usufructuary mortgages, four of which had been executed on 30th of Oct. 1907, and the redemption of three of which was claimed by Rajnarain and Udainarain in the redemption suit. One Sakal Bind had four sons by names Todar, Hoal, Sahai and Bhagwan. THE plaintiffs in suit No. 297 of 1945 and the defendants second set in the said suit are the descendants of the said four brothers. THE details of the four usufructuary mortgage deeds which were executed on 30th Oct., 1907 are as follows :- 1. Todar' s son Padarath executed the deed for a sum of Rs. 2,099/15/-. 2. Another mortgage deed was executed by Hoal' s son for Rs. 3,199/16/- The third mortgage deed was executed by Bhagwan' s three Sons, namely, Raicchha, Banjhu and Ramlagan for a sum of Rs. 2,499/15/-. The fourth mortgage deed was executed by Lakhraj, the son of Sahai, for a sum of Rs. 2,800/-. 3. The sale deed dated 28th May, 1936 was executed by the heirs of the said mortgagors. An important stipulation of the sale deed was that the vendees would redeem the aforesaid mortgages and after recovering possession of 81 bighas and odd land from the mortgagees, the vendees would keep 43 bighas and odd land with themselves which was the land sold in their favour by the said sale deed and the rest of the land was to be handed back to the vendors who, as stated above, were the heirs of the original mortgagors. 4. It seems that the vendees of the aforesaid sale deed dated 28th May, 1936 did not carry out the terms contained in the said document in full. They made some payments to the creditors of the vendor, secured and unsecured, but the full payments as stipulated therein were not made. Suit No. 39 of 1944 was filed by the vendors of the aforesaid sale deed against the said vendees. The vendor claimed the recovery of unpaid purchase money and damages. In the alternative, reliefs for possession and damages were claimed. This suit was decreed on 20th Feb., 1945 for some of the reliefs claimed. By a sale deed dated 29th June, 1945, Rajnarain and Udainarain, who had purchased 43 bighas and odd land by the earlier sale deed dated 28th May, 1936 sold half of the property purchased by them in favour of the applicants other than applicants Nos. 1 and 2 in suit No. 27 of 1945. A part of the sale consideration was left with the purchasers for being paid to the mortgagees of the three mortgage deeds.
(3.) THE applicants in suit No. 27 of 1945 sought to redeem the first three mortgage deeds detailed above. Possession of the mortgaged property was sought after the redemption of the mortgage deeds. As has been stated above, the said suit No. 27 of 1945 was one under S. 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act. Original Suit No. 297 of 1945 was filed by the minors of the Bind family in which they claimed to recover possession over the land sold in favour of Rajnarain and Udainarain by the aforementioned sale deed dated 28th May, 1936 after cancellation of the said deed. The plaintiffs impleaded Rajnarain and Udainarain as the first set of defendants and the defendants second set consisted of the vendors of the said document who were the parents or guardians of the minor plaintiffs. It was alleged that the defendants second set executed the said sale deed without any legal necessity and for wholly inadequate consideration. The transaction was alleged to be fraudulent and the plaintiffs claimed that they themselves had to pay all the creditors. The defendants first set contested the suit. Various pleas were raised in defence. Both the aforesaid suits, as already stated above, were consolidated and tried together. The issues which were framed in the two suits are being reproduced as they will give an idea of the nature of the controveraies involved therein : Suit No. 27 of 1945 1. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to bring a suit under S. 12 of the A. R. Act ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are vendees from the mortgagors ? 4. Whether any portion of the mortgage money has been paid up and the proportionate property redeemed ? 5. Whether there has been a valid discharge of the mortgage deeds ? 6. Whether there is any tacking bond dated 28-8-1916 for Rs. 399/15/-.;