MOHD. ABDUL KHADER MOHD KASTIM AND ANR.versusPAREETHIJ KUNJU SAYED AHAMMED AND ORS.

A            MOHD. ABDUL KHADER MOHD KASTIM AND ANR.
                                  v.
              PAREETHIJ KUNJU SA YEO AHAMMED AND ORS.

                               NOVEMBER 5, 1996

B           [M.M. PUNCHHT AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]

         Code of Civil Procedure, I 908 :

         Order 34, Rule 7-Preliminarydecree in redemption suit-Compliance
C with terms of-Limitation-Court not fixing any time limit for deposit of
    redemption money-Held, plaintiff was required to deposit the redemption
    money, payable forthwith and, in any case, within the statutory period of
    six months-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 ofpassing the decree-Plaintiff has to suffer for
D   his neglect.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7831 of
    1995.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.88 of the Kerala High Court
E in C.R.P. No.133 of 1983.

        G. Vishwanatha Iyer and A. Raymond, (S. Balakrishnan) for M.K.D.
    Namboodiri for the Appellants.

F        C. Seetharamaih, (Ramesh Babu M.R.,) for M.A. Firoz for the
    Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

G         The suit property was under a usufructuary mortgage. The appellant
    was the mortgagor thereof. The mortgage money was Rs. 18000. 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:

H                  "In the result, the plaintiff is given a preliminary decree for
                                          476
       MOHD. ABDUL MOHD. :<ASTIM v. PAREETHIJ KUN JU SAYED AHAMMED        477


              redemption of the plaint property on deposit of the mortgage · A
              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 rate of Rs.200 per mensem from the date of
              deposit of the redemption price. First defendant will apply
              for the issue of a commission to assess the value of
              improvements. He will apply within one month from this B
              date. The parties will bear their costs"

      The said decree was confirmed in appeal on 16.11.1965. It was
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         C
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 mortgagee-respondent 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      D
a decision preparatory 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.                                   E

      The terms of the decree ex facie are clear. Its direction above extracted
can be divided into three parts. Firstly, 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         F
price, he would be entitled to recover mesne 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-
mortgaged 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            G
then the same was payable by the appellant 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.18,000 in the plaint, payable forthwith, and in
any case within the statutory period of six months provided under Order           H
    478                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS J1996 J SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A 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 witl1in the permissible period of six
  months unless extended by the Court for reasonable cause shown. Here no
B 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 the decree in this manner and therefore has to suffer
  for his neglect. The terms of the decree say otherwise.
c        For the foregoing reasons we find no merit in this appeal and the
    same is accordingly dismissed.

    R.P.                                                  Appeal dismissed.