Abdul Khader Mohdkastim & Anr Vs. Pareethij Kunju Sayedahammed & Ors
 INSC 1392 (5
Punchni, Sujata V. Manohar
O R D
suit property was under a usufructuary mortgage.
appellant was the mortgagor thereof. The mortgage money was Rs.18,000/-. In the
suit for redemption instituted by the appellant redemption was sought on
payment of Rs.18,000/-. On November 22,1960
the trial court passed a preliminary decree in the following terms:
the result, the plaintiff is given a preliminary decree for redemption of the
plaint property on deposit of the mortgage amount and value of improvements ,
if any, that may be fixed in the final decree. The plaintiff is allowed to
recover mesne profits at the of Rs.200/- per mensem from the date of deposit of
the redemption price.
defendant will apply for the issue of a commission to assess the value of
improvements. He will apply within one month from this date. The parties will
bear their costs" The said decree was confirmed in appeal on 16.11.1965.
claimed that the decree of the trial court has merged therein and therefore the
limitation for all purposes started from the date of the appellate court's
order. The appellant claimed that the preliminary decree was deficient in as
much as no time had been fixed for the appellant depositing the redemption
money and that in the nature of things incomplete since the extent of the claim
of the mortgageerespondent relating to improvements had yet to be ascertained.
On that basis it was claimed that since the decree had not determined the final
amount payable as in terms of Order 34 Rule 7 the decree could not be called a
preliminary decree at all and was rather a decision preperatory to a
preliminary decree. Therefore there was no bar for the Court to pass another
preliminary decree. Taking shelter under these arguments time Was sought from
the Court within which the redemption price could be termed as payable. The
trial court dismissed the application for ascertainment of time and the High
Court confirmed that view, which has given rise to this appeal.
terms of the decree ex facie are clear. Its direction above extracted can be
divided into three parts.
the plaintiff (the appellant herein) is given a preliminary decree for
redemption of the property on deposit of the mortgage amount. Secondly, on the
appellant depositing the redemption price, he would 'be entitled to recover mense
profits at the rate of Rs.200/- per mensem till possession of the mortgaged
property was delivered to him. Lastly if there be any improvement caused by the
dependent-mortgagee then he was required to lay a claim within the time fixed
and apply for appointment of a commission to assess the value of the
improvement. And if there be any improvement and its value ascertained then the
same was payable by theappellant at the time of passing of the final decree.
Evidently, all these obligations and counter-obligations were separate in
nature and the plaintiff-appellant was required on his part to deposit the
redemption money which was equivalent to the mortgage money, ascertained at
Rs.18,OOO/- in the plaint, payable forthwith, and in any case within the
statutory period of six months provided under Order 34 Rule 7 C.P.C. The Court
instantly may have omitted to prescribe the time for payment under the
preliminary decree but that time in no case could exceed six months from the
date of the passing of the decree. If the Court had failed to mention the
period then the plaintiff- appellant was all the same required to make payment
within the permissible period of six months unless extended by the Court for
reasonable cause shown. Here no application was made for extension and for a
good cause. Rather it was projected that the time for payment had not arisen
and unless the claim for improvement stood settled (which claim was never
preferred) the occasion for payment had not arisen. We think that the appellant
was in error in reading the terms of decree in this manner and therefore has to
his neglect. The terms of the decree say otherwise.
the foregoing reasons we find no merit in this appeal and the same is