Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Property Rights

The Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the appeal with costs. It held that Mahadev conveyed all his rights in the suit property to the plaintiff's father under Ex. 78, including the equity of redemption and mortgagee's rights. The sale deed was deemed binding on the appellants, and the decision in Civil Suit No. 80 of 1941 did not constitute res judicata. The plaintiff's father was granted the right to recover possession, and the request to amend the written statement and remit the matter to the trial Court was denied.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of rights conveyed by Mahadev under Ex. 78.
2. Binding nature of Ex. 78 on the appellants.
3. Applicability of res-judicata from Civil Suit No. 80 of 1941.
4. Merger of rights in the equity of redemption and mortgagee's rights in Mahadev.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Rights Conveyed by Mahadev under Ex. 78:
The primary issue was whether Mahadev conveyed both the equity of redemption and the mortgagee's rights in the suit property to the plaintiff's father under Ex. 78. The appellants contended that only the equity of redemption was transferred, while the mortgagee's rights were retained by Mahadev's family. However, the Supreme Court held that the various recitals in Ex. 78 clearly established that Mahadev conveyed all his rights in the suit property to the plaintiff's father, including both the equity of redemption and the mortgagee's rights. The Court emphasized the recital stating, "now neither we, nor our bhaubands nor heirs etc. retain any kind of right, title and interest in it," which indicated a comprehensive transfer of all rights.

2. Binding Nature of Ex. 78 on the Appellants:
The appellants argued that Ex. 78 was not binding on them as it was not executed by Mahadev for legal necessity. Both the trial Court and the High Court found that the appellants did not plead that Ex. 78 was not binding due to lack of legal necessity. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the appellants' failure to raise this contention and the framing of issue No. 3, "Do defendants prove that the sale-deed, dated 9th January, 1926, is not binding upon themRs." cast the burden on the appellants. The Court concluded that the plaintiff was not required to adduce evidence on this aspect due to the absence of a specific plea from the appellants.

3. Applicability of Res-Judicata from Civil Suit No. 80 of 1941:
The appellants contended that the finding in Civil Suit No. 80 of 1941, which held that Ex. 78 was not executed for legal necessity and thus not binding on them, should operate as res-judicata. The Supreme Court noted that for a decision to operate as res-judicata, it must be established that the previous decision was given by a court with jurisdiction to try the present suit. The Court highlighted that the Civil Judge, Junior Division, who tried Civil Suit No. 80 of 1941, had limited pecuniary jurisdiction (up to Rs. 5000/-), whereas the present suit was valued at Rs. 11,001/-. The Court found no evidence that the suit property was worth Rs. 5000/- or less in 1941, thus concluding that the previous decision did not operate as res-judicata.

4. Merger of Rights in the Equity of Redemption and Mortgagee's Rights in Mahadev:
The appellants argued that there could not have been a merger of the rights in the equity of redemption and the mortgagee's rights in Mahadev, as these rights were obtained under different titles. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this argument, noting that the sale affected by Mahadev under Ex. 78 was binding on the appellants and that all rights owned by Mahadev were transferred to the plaintiff's father. Consequently, any merger of rights was considered to have occurred in the hands of the plaintiff's father, entitling him to recovery of possession.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the High Court, dismissing the appeal with costs. The Court held that Mahadev conveyed all his rights in the suit property to the plaintiff's father under Ex. 78, and the sale deed was binding on the appellants. The decision in Civil Suit No. 80 of 1941 did not operate as res-judicata, and the plaintiff's father was entitled to recovery of possession. The request by the appellants to amend the written statement and remit the matter to the trial Court was also rejected.

---