JUDGMENT : This is a second appeal by Sultan Khan, defendant, against the judgment of 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhopal, whereby the order of Munsif, Raisen was confirmed. 2. Hari Bam, plaintiff, had instituted the present suit against Sultan Khan and another for redemption of the mortgaged properties consisting of a house and a 'khandhar', both situated in mohalla Fouzdarpura of Raisen. The mortgage money was only Rs. 40/-. Sultan Khan contested the suit and two of the grounds taken were that he had spent, Rs. 300/- towards the improvement of the house and Rs. 1100/- towards the construction of a house on the 'khandhar'. For the purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to give the other grounds put forward in defence by Sultan Khan. Munsif, Raisen, was of opinion that the defendant had failed to prove that he had spent Rs. 1400/- on improvements or on the construction of a house, and consequently decreed the plaintiff's suit on payment of Rs. 40/-. Sultan Khan went up in appeal against this order. Though the first Appellate Court was of opinion that Sultan Khan had spent Rs. 1100/- on the construction of the house on the 'khandhar' land, the claim for the recovery of this-amount was rejected for the reason that he made the constructions at his own risk and. "must now suffer". The prayer for permission to remove the materials of the constructions was disallowed as the first Appellate Court regarded the construction to be by way of improvement in the mortgaged property. As regards the other sum of Rs. 300/-, the first Appellate Court appears to have taken the same opinion as the trial Court, namely, that the appellant had failed to prove which particular repairs were necessary at a particular time for preserving the house and how much amount was spent by him on such repairs. 3. In the second appeal only two points have been raised. Firstly, that as regards the improvement no clear issue was framed and that in any case the appellant was entitled to get a decree for the sum of Rs. 300/-. Secondly, that the appellant was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 1100/- also and in any case he should have been allowed to remove the materials of the house constructed by him. 4. 300/-. Secondly, that the appellant was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 1100/- also and in any case he should have been allowed to remove the materials of the house constructed by him. 4. The Issue framed by the trial Court on the two points raised in this appeal runs as' below : "What amount if any can be realised by defendant No. 1 for improvements, in the mortgaged property if made at all ?" It is true that the issue was not clearly framed so as to cover the plea of having spent Rs. 1100/- on the construction of a house, but from ground No. 2 of the Memo, of Appeal presented before the first Appellate Court no other inference can be drawn except that it was clear in the mind of the defendant that this issue covered both the amounts of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 1100/- spent by him on the mortgaged properties. In fact some evidence had been adduced by the defendant on this point. The plea that the defendant was prejudiced on account of the non-framing of proper issue, appears to me to be an afterthought on realising what evidence the defendant had not adduced in the case. No party can be allowed', any leniency to make good his laches or to meet his own negligence by being permitted at a late stage to adduce additional evidence. The negligent party must bear the consequences of its' own negligence or default. 5. Issue No. 4 detailed above clearly covers all the three important matters in issue, namely, whether any improvement was made in the mortgaged properties, if so what amount was spent by the defendant on such improvements, and what amounts could he realise before possession was delivered to the plaintiff. No additional point requires consideration in connection with the pleas raised by the defendant. Consequently on this ground also it cannot be said that the defendant had been prejudiced as a result of the improper framing of the issue. 6. Both the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have given a concurrent finding that the defendant has failed to prove that he had spent Rs. 300/- on improvements necessary for preservation of the mortgaged property (house). In second appeal this finding of fact cannot be challenged and consequently the claim for the recovery of this amount must stand dismissed. 7. 300/- on improvements necessary for preservation of the mortgaged property (house). In second appeal this finding of fact cannot be challenged and consequently the claim for the recovery of this amount must stand dismissed. 7. As regards the other item of Rs. 1100/- spent towards the construction of a house on the 'khandhar' land, the defendant-appellant has not been able to show me anything in writing in support of his contention that he made the constructions with the permission of the plaintiff and was consequently entitled to the recovery of this amount before the mortgaged properties could be redeemed. Even if the plaintiff had not objected to line defendant constructing a house on the ''khandhar' land, it will not show that the mortgaged properties could not be redeemed unless the amount spent by the defendant was also paid. In this connection it will have to be kept in mind that the mortgage was for Rs. 40/- only while the defendant alleges to have spent Rs. 1100/- on the construction of a house on the 'khandhar' land. If the plaintiff has to pay the total amount before he can redeem the property, he would indirectly be prohibited from exercising his legal right to ask for redemption of the mortgage. Before the plaintiff can be estopped from redeeming the mortgage, the defendant will have to prove that there was a contract under which the defendant could make the constructions worth Rs. 1100/- and the constructions made would form part of the mortgaged properties which could not be redeemed unless the amount spent was also paid by the mortgagor. No such contract has been proved and consequently the defendant is not entitled to the recovery of Rs. 1100/- from the plaintiff. 8. The first Appellate Court regarded these constructions worth Rs. 1100/- to be an improvement to the mortgaged property. The construction of a new house on 'khandhar' land cannot be deemed to be an improvement to the 'khandhar'. It will always be treated as a new construction, not necessary for the preservation of a 'khandhar'. As the new house is not an improvement to the mortgaged 'khandhar' land, the defendant would be entitled to remove the materials of the house constructed by him, of course, if the materials can be removed without in any way damaging the 'khandhar' land. 9. As the new house is not an improvement to the mortgaged 'khandhar' land, the defendant would be entitled to remove the materials of the house constructed by him, of course, if the materials can be removed without in any way damaging the 'khandhar' land. 9. The second appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and partly dismissed and it is ordered that the decree of the first appellate Court be and is hereby modified only to the extent that the defendant can remove the materials of the house constructed by him on the 'khandhar' land provided that the land is not in any way damaged. Costs of the appeal on the parties. Appeal partly allowed.