S.N.DEEDWANIA, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by defend ants -appellants Bherulal and Ambalal against the Judgment and decree, dated November 1, 1969 of the learned Additional Civil judge, Udaipur, dismissing their appeal against the judgment and preliminary decide petted by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Kanore, In favour of the plaintiffs respondents for redemption of the suit property.
(2.) THE facts relevant to the disposal of this second appeal are these According to the plaintiffs -respondents, Brijlal mortgaged with possession the suit -shop with the defendants by a registered mortgage -deed on 12 -10 -59 for a sum of Rs. 700/ -. Brijlal then sold this shop to the plaintiffs on 23 -10 -62 under a registered sale deed. On 6 -7 -65, plaintiffs served a notice on the defendants for redemption of the shop and thereafter filed a suit. It appears that Brijlal had died before filing the suit and, therefore, it was filed against defendants -appellants Bherulal and Ambalal sons of the mortgagor of the suit -shop. It was not disputed by the appellants that the shop was mortgaged with Brijlal However, the right of the respondents to redeem the property was disputed on the ground that on 11 -11 -61 Brijlal and Govinddas sold this property to them for a sum of Rs. 1200/ - and took a sum of Rs. 300/ - and agreed to execute a registered sale -deed. On 11 -10 -66, Govinddas and Banshilal executed a registered sale -deed in favour of appellants. Issue No. 1 and 2 raised on the pleadings of the parties were to the following effect: 1. whether Bherulal entered into an agreement for sale of the suit -shoo from Brijlal and Govinddas and If so, what is its effect on the suit. 2. what is the effect on the suit of the sale of the suit property on 11 -10 -66 for a sum of Rs. 1200/ - in favour of defendants by Banshilal and Govinddas sons of Brijlal. The learned Munsif held that the registered sale deed, dated 11 -10 -66 in favour of the appellants by the sons of Brijlal was of no effect in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act With regard to Ex A/1, the learned Munsif was of the opinion that the agreement Ex. A/1 and the receipt Ex A/2 were not executed by Brijlal and, therefore, the respondents were entitled to a preliminary decree for redemption. The lower appellate court agreed with the aforesaid findings of fact arrived at by the learned Munsif Magistrate.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and none was present on behalf of tire respondent and perused the record of the case carefully.;