1. This is a defendant's appeal against a concurring decree of the District Judge of Gurdaspur dated 1-7-1953, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit.
(2) I may here state the facts in some detail, and they are that one Ujagar Singh was the owner of 86 kanals 12 marlas of land, which is in dispute, plus some other land. On 31-5-1945 Ujagar Singh mortgaged to Lehna Singh theland in the suit and the other land for Rs. 2,000/-. Lehna Singh died and on 2-10-1949 his legal representatives transferred to Narain Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- the mortgagee rights in 86 kanals 12 marlas of land which is evidenced by Ex. P4.
It appears that before that Ujagar Singh had redeemed the other land which had been mortgaged with Lehna Singh by payment at Rs. 1000/-. On 12-4-1950 Ujagar Singh mortgaged 39 kanals 12 marlas of land out 86 kanals 12 marlas for Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiffs and Charan Singh defendant No. 2. and he had previously leased 47 canals of land to them for ten years. Thus the plaintiffs etc. became mortgagees of 39 kanals and 12 marlas of land and lessees of 47 kanals.
3. The plaintiff's along with Ujagar Singh and Charan Singh defendant made an application under the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act of 1913 for redemption of the land and it was held that they could not redeem the land because the mutation had not been attested in their favour.
On 18-3-1952 a suit was then brought, by the plaintiffs for a declaration challenging the order of the Revenue Officer and both the Courts below have held in their favour.
4. In second appeal Mr. Gujral has submitted that no doubt under Section 60, T.P. Act, the integrity of a mortgage cannot be broken but because the mortgagees themselves have allowed a portion of the property mortgaged with them to be redeemed the plaintiffs are only entitled to redeem their portion, i.e., 39 kanals 12 marlas and not all the rest. But after the amendment of 1929 the proviso to Section 60 reads as under:
'Redemption of portion of mortgaged property:
Nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share 'only' of the mortgaged property to redeem his own share 'only' on payment of a proportionate part of the amount remaining due on the mortgage, except only where a mortgagee, or, if there are more mortgages than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acquired in whole or in part, the share of a mortgagor.'
The addition of this word 'only' has been the subject-matter of interpretation by the Allahabad High Court and that view of the law has been accepted by the learned author of Mulla's Transfer of Property Act, and, therefore, out of the three exceptions which were allowed before the amendment, i.e., (1) where the mortgagee allowed redemption of a share, (2) where there is release of a share by the mortgagee and (3) where the mortgagee acquires a share in the property mortgaged, only the last one remains.
Mulla's Transfer of Property Act at page 424 the law is stated as follows:
'Under Section 60 of the Act the integrity of a mortgagee is not broken except where the mortgagee has purchased or otherwise acquired as proprietor a certain portion of the property mortgaged. This categorical statement of the law sets at rest the divergent views previously expressed by Courts in India.'
5. Mr. Gujral relies on a Judgment of the Patna High Court in -- 'Kamakshya Narain Singh v. Ramzan Ali', AIR 1915 Pat 106 (A), but in that case all that is he-id is that Section 60, T. P. Act, does not prevent a mortgagee himself from splitting up the mortgage and the section has no application to a case where he himself asks for a decree for a sale of a portion only of the mortgaged property. That has, in my opinion, no application to the facts of the case before me.
The suit in my opinion has been rightly decreed, and I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.