Mortgagee's gain from mortgaged possession must benefit the mortgagor and cannot defeat redemption rights.

A mortgagee who acquires a grant by exploiting possession derived from the mortgage cannot use that advantage to defeat the mortgagor's right of redemption; the benefit enures to the mortgagor under section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, subject to reimbursement of proper expenses. The right of redemption is lost only by a recognised legal mode such as contract, merger or statutory bar, none of which applied. A non-joinder objection also fails where the absent grantee had no interest in the specific share in dispute. The principle is that a mortgagee must hold any such acquired advantage for the mortgagor's benefit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the grant obtained by the mortgagees after abolition of the watan extinguished the mortgagors' right of redemption or enured to the benefit of the mortgagors under section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. (ii) Whether the suit could fail for non-joinder of the other grantee, Pandu Krishna.

Issue (i): Whether the grant obtained by the mortgagees after abolition of the watan extinguished the mortgagors' right of redemption or enured to the benefit of the mortgagors under section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

Analysis: The right of redemption can be lost only by a recognized legal mode such as contract, merger, or a statutory bar. The mortgagees remained in possession only because of the mortgage and obtained the grant by taking advantage of that position after the watan lands were resumed and regranted under the abolition statute. That advantage was traceable to their status as mortgagees and was in derogation of the mortgagors' rights as permanent Mirasi tenants who had already deposited the occupancy price. Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 required the mortgagees to hold such advantage for the benefit of the mortgagors, subject to reimbursement of expenses properly incurred.

Conclusion: The grant did not extinguish the right of redemption, and the advantage obtained by the mortgagees enured to the benefit of the mortgagors, subject to repayment of the requisite amount.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit could fail for non-joinder of the other grantee, Pandu Krishna.

Analysis: The grant order allotted specific shares, and the dispute in the suit concerned only the one-half share mortgaged by the plaintiffs and granted to the mortgagees. Pandu Krishna had no interest in that share, so his absence did not affect the relief claimed.

Conclusion: The objection of non-joinder was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The mortgagees could not retain the benefit of the grant obtained through their position as mortgagees, and the decree for redemption was rightly upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A mortgagee who acquires an advantage in respect of mortgaged property by using the possession or position derived from the mortgage must hold that advantage for the mortgagor's benefit and cannot thereby defeat the mortgagor's right of redemption.

---