Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal in a suit for possession of specific movable property.
(2.) THE respondents sued the appellants on the allegations that they had obtained a loan of Rs. 75/11/- from the defendants on Asarh Sud. 7, Svt. 1989. by pleading gold and silver ornaments of the weight of 4 tolas, 8, anngs, 2 ratis and 197 tolas respectively. THEy agreed to pay an equal sum by way of interest, and claimed return of one ornaments on payment of the amount. The defendants pleaded that the weight of gold ornaments was only 22/16 tolas, and that the silver was not pure, but only of the fineness of the rupee. They also pleaded that there was a stipulation in the agreement to pledge that the value of the pledged property was agreed to be Rs. 100/- and it was stipulated that in case the amount of the principal and interest exceeded Rs. 100/-, the debtor would lose the right to redeem this pledge. The trial court accepted all the pleas of the defendants and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge was of opinion that although the Indian Contract Act was not brought into force by any formal notification of the Government of Kishangarh, its principles were applicable, and the pledger could not lose his right of redemption until a notice of demand was made by the creditor, and that the creditor's remedy thereafter would be only to sell the property at market rate. He agreed with the findings of the trial court that the weight of the gold ornaments was 22/16 tolas, and that the silver ornaments were of the fineness of the rupee. He held that the agreement when truly interpreted meant that the right to redeem would only be lost if the amount of interest exceeded Rs. 100/-He held that the rule of damdupat would not apply, but did not proceed to find the amount due on the pledge. He, however, left that matter to be decided by the trial court by allowing the appeal and holding the plaintiffs entitled to redeem the pledge. Learned counsel for the defendants appellants argued that a stipulation for loss of a right to redeem in certain circumstances is permissible, and in the present case whatever view may be taken, the contingency in which the right of redemption has been agreed to be lost had happened, and, therefore, the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the present suit. He relied upon Dwarika vs. Bagawati (1) The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is correct. There is no provision of law which may prevent parties from stipulating that the right to redeem a pledge will be lost in certain circumstances. The considerations which apply in the case of mortgage of immovable property are different, for there is a special provision of law that the parties by their agreement creating mortgage cannot put any clog on the enquiry of redemption. If the agreement be interpreted as meaning that the right will be lost when the principal and interest exceed Rs, 100/-, there is no doubt that the right will be lost in about 21 'months' time, for the rate of interest agreed upon was one pice per rupee per month. Even if it be assumed that the agreement purports to mean that the right will be lost when interest alone would exceed Rs. 100/- the period required for the interest to accumulate over Rs. 100/-would be slightly more than 7 years. The suit was, however, instituted more than 12 years after the date of pledge. The pledge' was made on 10th July, 1932, and the suit was instituted on 6th April, 1945. The lower court was, therefore, wrong in giving a decree for redemption to the plaintiff respondents. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kishangarh, dated 21st July, 1949, is set aside, and that of the trial court restored with costs throughout. . ;