Nalam Bheemaraju vs Kunja Behari Gajendra Devu and Others

The instrument of simple mortgage, dated 22nd October 1892, on which the suit is brought by the plaintiff, the mortgagee, for the recovery of

the mortgage debt by sale of the mortgaged property, purports to be a Zemindari mortgage, the property mortgaged being the Zemindari of the

mortgagor, described in Schedule No. 2 annexed to the mortgage instrument. The operative part of the instrument of mortgage runs as follows:

In respect of the principal, interest, etc., of this document are (mortgaged) the following:

The entire Zemindari of Palur, which is situate in Chatrapur Sub-Registry of Ganjam District, which has passed to our possession from our

ancestors, which is in our possession and enjoyment, which yields an annual income of about Rs. 9,975, which is described in detail in Schedule

No. 2 herein, on which is payable annually a peishkush of Rs. 22-0-0 and a land cess of Rs. 463-0-0, and which bears Zemindari Patta No. 364,

together with the hills, jungles, cultivated and uncultivated lands, gardens, sources of irrigation, etc., therein, as well as with our entire right and

income and the Kattubadis on enfranchised inams,--these are mortgaged to you subject to the mortgages mentioned in Schedule No. 2, but they

are retained in our possession.

Schedule No. 2 specifies the 29 villages constituting the Zemindari, with the approximate extent and yearly income thereof, one of such villages

(No. 14) being Subaliya. This village is an Inam village of certain Payaks, in which the only right, title and interest which the mortgagor, as

Zemindar of Palur, possesses, is to the annual payment, by the inamdars, of a fixed Kattubadi of Rs. 70, and apparently this is all that is included in

the approximate annual income specified in the above schedule. At the date of the mortgage the Zemindar also possessed a mortgage-right in the

said village, being the a.ssignee apparently of a simple mortgage, made in 1874, by the Payaks, the Inamdars, to one Brindavana Doss, who in

1889 assigned the mortgage to the Zemindar.

The only question raised and argued in the appeal is whether, so far. as the village of Subaliya is concerned, the only interest therein, which was

assigned by way of mortgage, to the plaintiff, is the Zemindar''s right to Kattubadi, or also the mortgage-right possessed by the mortgagor as

assignee of the mortgage granted by the Inamdars. It is contended on behalf of the appellant, that he is a sub-mortgagee, under the Zemindar, of

the village of Subaliya, besides being the mortgagee, of the Kattubadi payable to the Zemindar, in respect of it. The question we have to decide is,

whether the property mortgaged, is the Zemindari estate of Palur, or the properties of the mortgagor, situate within the territorial limits of the

Zemindari. The plaintiff in his evidence admits that he was neither informed, nor otherwise aware, of the mortgage interest, which the Zemindar had

in the above village of Subaliya ; but whatever rights were possessed by him, in the said village, were mortgaged to him He also says in his

evidence that he cannot say whether the Zemindar handed to him the mortgage deed executed by the Inamdars and the deed assigning that

mortgage to him. There is little doubt that those documents were not handed to the plaintiff, but retained by the Zemindar himself. The Zemindar, as

assignee of that mortgage, brought a suit against the Payaks, the Inamdars, in 0.S. No. 44 of 1894; and obtained a decree on the footing of that

mortgage. The 9th respondent obtained an assignment of that decree and, in execution thereof, became the purchaser, in 1898, of the village of

Subaliya. The plaintiff was not a party to the said suit, and unless the Zemindar acted fraudulently in bringing the said suit to enforce the mortgage

granted by the Inamdars, it is clear that the Zemindar did not consider that he had sub-mortgaged the village to the plaintiff. Though the Zemindar

did not intend to assign his mortgage right in the village by way of sub-mortgage to the plaintiff and he did not consider that he had done so when

he brought 0.S. No. 44 of 1894, and though the plaintiff himself was not aware of the mortgage-right Vhich the Zemindar had in the said village

and did not obtain possession of the original mortgage deed, yet, if it appeared clearly from the instrument of mortgage, that all the interests

possessed in fact and law by the mortgagor, in the village of Subaliya, were assigned to the plaintiff by. way of mortgage, it is immaterial that the

Zemindar did not really so intend. and that the plaintiff was not aware of the exact interest which the Zemindar had in that village. The determination

of the question, therefore, depends mainly upon the right construction of the instrument of mortgage, The transaction purports to be a simple

mortgage, of the Zemindari of Palur, which bears Zemindari Patta No. 364, and which has passed to the possession of the Zemindar from his

ancestors, yielding an annual income of about Rs. 9,975 (the particulars of which are given in Schedule No. 2 appended to the mortgage

instrument), subject to a fixed peishkush of Rs. 22, together with the hills, jungles, cultivated and uncultivated lands, gardens, sources of irrigation,

&c., therein, as well as with the Zemindar''s entire right and income and the Kattubadi on enfranchised Inams. It is clear that the entire Zemindari of

Palur, bearing Patta No. 364 and subject to a peishkush of Rs. 22, which was mortgaged, is the estate of Palur, which was permanently settled on

Zemindari tenure under Regulation XXV of 1802. , The village of Subaliya was at the time of the permanent settlement, a jaghir or Inam held by

the Payaks, subject to the payment of a Kattubadi to the Zemindar. Under the said Regulation, the permanent settlement was exclusive of the

Inam, (vide Section 4), and included only the kattubadi, which alone was taken as part of the assets of the Zemindar.

The interests which the mortgagor possessed in the village, at the time of the mortgage, were two-fold--one, right to the payment of the

Kattubadi, and the other, his right as a simple mortgagee under the Payaks, the Inamdars of the village. The former right alone belonged to him,

qua Zemindar, and was an incident of the Zemindari tenure and would be comprised in the expression--"" with our entire right and income ""--

occurring in the mortgage instrument. The latter right, as mortgagee, he did not possess, qua Zemindar, and it was not an incident of the Zemindari

tenure, i. e., of the estate as permanently settled under the Regulation. It is evident that the Zemindari of Palur is referred in the mortgage deed, as

an estate permanently settled, subject to the payment of a fixed peishkush and not in a geographical sense, as comprising every kind of right, title

and interest, which the mortgagor may have possessed, within the local limits of the Zemindari. This is placed beyond all reasonable doubt, by the

express inclusion in the mortgage, of kattubadis or quit-rents payable on enfranchised Inams situate within the Zmindari limits. Such quit-rents,

which were imposed when the Inams were enfranchised in this Presidency, are payable to Government, but the right to collect the same, appears

to have been assigned by Government for administrative reasons to the Zemindar himself, in consideration of his undertaking to pay to Government

an amount equal to 90 per cent. of such quit-rents, the remaining 10 per cent. being intended as compensation for the trouble and risk involved in

the collection of the quit-rent. If the expression ""with our entire right and income"" had reference to the Zemindari in its geographical sense, and not

merely to the estate held on Zemindari tenure, the express inclusion of quit-rents on enfranchised Inams would be superlluous. But, as the right he

had to such quit-rents was not possessed by him, qua Zemindar, and it did not form an appurtenance of the Zemindari, it had to be expressly

included, to give effect to the intention of the parties, that the mortgage should comprise also the right to such quit-rents. The parties, therefore,

would also have expressly included the Zemindar''s simple mortgage-right in the village of Subaliya, if their intention was to include that right also in

the mortgage. This construction of the instrument of mortgage receives support from the conduct of the parties, in that the plaintiff did not obtain

possession of the original mortgage deed, and in that the Zemindar himself subsequently brought a suit upon the mortgage deed against the Payaks

in O.S. No. 44 of 1894. If the instrument in question had been an outright sale of the Zemindari and not a mere mortgage, it could hardly be

seriously contended that the Zemindari''s mortgage interest in the village would pass under such conveyance.

The case of Rooke v. Lord Kensington 25 L.J. 795 which was cited on behalf of the respondent, is a strong authority in support of his

contention. In that case, Lord Kensington, the mortgagor, after specifying certain properr ties, which were mortgaged, also conveyed by way of

mortgage, ""all other, the lands, tenements and hereditaments (if any), in the County of Middlesex."" At the date of the mortgage, the mortgagor was

seized in fee, of a manor, at Killahan, in the county of Middlesex ; and the question arose, whether the mortgage instrument conveyed to the

mortgagee that manor also It was held that it did not, Vice-Chancellor Wood observing as follows: ""I think the clear intent and purport must be

held to be simply a sweeping in of other property ejusdem generis with the property which had been so conveyed, if any there should be; certainly

not to include a copyhold property, and manorial rights in property of a totally different character from anything attempted to be conveyed or

specified throughout the deed.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.