JUDGMENT 1. - In Mohalla Surajpole, Udaipur City, there was situated a Math Well- known as Urnraogirijee- ka Math with certain properties annexed thereto including the suit shop bearing Municipal No. 34/425. Swami Budhgiri was the mahant of this math On Miti Baisakh Sudi 13, Smt. 1985 (year 1928 A. D ) Mahant Budngiri usufructurartly mortgaged the aforesaid shop bearing Municipal No. 14/425 with Mohan Lal, father of present defendants-respondents after receiving a consideration amount of Rs. 530/-. The encumbrance of the mortgaged property was increased by Mahant Budhgiri by further taking an amount of Rs. 71/- on Miti Jeth Sudi 3 Smt 1992 (corresponding to 1935 A.D.) and Rs. 91/- on Miti Sawan Budi 3 Smt. 1992 (corresponding to the year 1935A D.) Mohan Lal mortgagee died in Smt. 1994 and the defendants-respondents are his sons and in possession of the mortgaged shop. In Smt. 1994 Umraogirijee ka math was under the superintendence of Court of Wards. During that time, the Court of Wards required the respondents to furnish particulars of the mortgage whereupon Radha Kishan defendant No. 2 acknowledging the mortgage o the shop for a consideration of Rs. 530/- produced a copy of the mortgage deed in the Court of Wards and the particulars of the further amounts of Rs. 71/- and Rs. 91/- taken by Mahant Budhgiri. The last Mahant of the math was Mahant Fatehgiri who died on December 6, 1943 and by order No.26858 dated September 2, 1944 of Mahkma Khas, the math properties were taken over by the former Mewar State and on the formation of the State of Rajasthan, the math properties including the mortgaged shop came in the ownership of the Rajasthan State. 2. Civil Original Suit No. 478 of 1988 was instituted by the appellant State of Rajasthan in the Court of Munsif, Udaipur on December 18, 1968 against the respondents for possession over the aforesaid shop after redemption of the mortgage. It was alleged that the mortgage had been acknowledged by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on various dates specified in para 5 of the plaint. It was alleged that according to the Old Limitation Act, the period of limitation for redemption of mortgages was 60 years and in relation to redemption of old mortgages, the limitation was upto December 31, 1968. 1 and 2 on various dates specified in para 5 of the plaint. It was alleged that according to the Old Limitation Act, the period of limitation for redemption of mortgages was 60 years and in relation to redemption of old mortgages, the limitation was upto December 31, 1968. On the above basis - And on the basis of alleged acknowledgements, the suit was stated to be within limitation. 3. The version of the defendants-respondents in their written statement has been that the suit shop had, as a matter of fact, originally mortgaged by Mahant Budhgiri with the grand-father of the defendants named Chain Kam on miti Mangsir Sudi 13 Smt. 1954 for an amount of Rs. 200/-. Later on some more advances were made to Mahant Budhgiri and ultimately on Miti Baisakh Budi 13 Smt. 1985 the encumbrance of the mortagaged shop stood increased to Rs. 530/-. Mahant Budhgiri further took advances of Rs. 71 and Rs. 91/- and thus the total mortgage amount because Rs. 692/ -. According to the defendants, their father Mohan Lal did not die in Smt. 1994 but died in Smt. 2013. It was denied for want of knowledge that on the death of Mahant Fatehgiri on December 6, 943, the math and its properties were taken over by the former Mewar State under Mahkma Khas Order No. 26858 dated September 2 1944. The ownership of the plaintiff State of Rajasthan to the suit shop was denied. According to the defendants, the period of limitation for redemption of the mortgage expired on miti Mangsir Sudi 13 Smt. 2014 and since then they are in the possession of the suit shop as owners. According to the defendants, period of limitation (or redemption of mortgages, according to the old law of limitation was 60 years and this period of 60 years expired on miti Mangsir Sudi 13 Smt. 2014. They accordingly pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. 4. According to the defendants, period of limitation (or redemption of mortgages, according to the old law of limitation was 60 years and this period of 60 years expired on miti Mangsir Sudi 13 Smt. 2014. They accordingly pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. 4. The trial court found that it was not in dispute between the parties that the suit shop was of the Umraogiriji-ka Math and it was also not in dispute that Budhgiri was Mahant of this math and he was succeeded by his disciple Fatehgiri The Munsif held that on the death of Fatebgiri without any disciple, the math and the properties annexed to it were resumed by former Mewar State under orders of Mahkma Khas in Revenue Department of the former State of Mewar dated September 2, 1944 (Ex. 16). After taking over the math and its properties, the building of the math was transferred to the Ayurved department of Mewar State and it was decided that the income from the properties of the math should be utilised for the purpose of Ayurved department of that state. The trial court held that the State of Rajasthan was the owner of the suit shop which had been mortgaged by Mahant Budhgiri. On the question of limitation the Munsif held that although. from Ex. A/1 it was proved that there was an old mortgage executed by Mahant Budhgiri evidenced by that document, but later on a fresh mortgage deed (Ex. 4) was executed by Mahant Budhgiri in favour of the father of the defendants on Miti Baisakh Budi 13 Smt. 1985. He held that in former Mewar State, the period of limitation for redemption was admittedly 60 years and as the suit had been filed by the State of Kajasthan before the expiry of 60 years, it was within limitation, He, therefore, decreed the suit of the State of Rajasthan on August 22, 1972 for possession over the suit shop against the defendants after redemption of mortgage by payment of the amount of Rs. 69/- by the plaintiff to the defendants. 5. Aggrieved by this decree, Motilal defendant No. 2 filed Civil First Appeal No. 234 of 1972 in the Court of the District Judge, Udaipur. The appeal was transferred by the district judge to the court of Civil Judge Udaipur and was registered in that court as Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1972. 69/- by the plaintiff to the defendants. 5. Aggrieved by this decree, Motilal defendant No. 2 filed Civil First Appeal No. 234 of 1972 in the Court of the District Judge, Udaipur. The appeal was transferred by the district judge to the court of Civil Judge Udaipur and was registered in that court as Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1972. The Civil Judge, Udaipur by his judgment dated October 3, 1972 allowed the appeal of the defendant No. 2 and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The Civil Judge held that the former State of Mewar was in the nature of crown and if any person died issueless and there was no heir. the property was escheated to the crown as ultimate heir. However, relying upon the decision of this court in (1) Bhera Vs Rameshwar Lal, 1971 WLN 684 , the Civil Judge held that the limitation was 15 years from the date right to suit accrued according to the Article 7 of Kanoon Miyad Mewar of Smt 1988. According to the Civil Judge, the mortgage being of Smt. 195, it could have been redeemed upto Smt. 2000. It appears from the judgment of the Civil Judge that the plaintiff claimed limitation tin the basis of future advances made by Mohan Lal in Smt. 1992 and on the basis of document (Ex.6) However, the Civil Judge stated that subsequent advances were taken by Fatehgiri and they cannot be said to be acknowledgements because Fatehgiri was not the person against whom the property was being claimed by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff was claiming as successor of Fatehgiri because the property had passed by escheat to the former State of Mewar and the plaintiff could not use the acknowledgement of its predecessor for extending the period of limitation. He held that in a suit for redemption, the acknowledgement of liability must be by the mortgagee. He held that if the document (Ex. 5) was excluded as an acknowledgement, the subsequent acknowledgement Ex. 6 of the year 1944 was after the expiry of the period of limitation and it could not extend the limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act of 1963. He held that if the document (Ex. 5) was excluded as an acknowledgement, the subsequent acknowledgement Ex. 6 of the year 1944 was after the expiry of the period of limitation and it could not extend the limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act of 1963. He held that the Munsif was wrong in holding that the limitation for redemption of mortgage in the former State of Mewar was 60 dears According to him, the period of limitation was only 15 years as held by this court in Bhera's case (supra). The State of the Rajasthan has, therefore come in the Second Appeal. 6. It may be mentioned that both the courts below have held that on the death of Fatehpuri the last mahant of Umraogiriji-ka Math, the math and the properties annexed thereto had been escheated or resumed by the former State of Mewar on September 2, 1944. The Civil Judge, Udaipur dismissed the suit of the plaintiff solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation for the reasons already mentioned above. It may be stated at the outset that the defendants had admitted the averments contained in para 1 of the plaint in their written statement. Thus they had admitted that the suit shown hearing Municipal No. 34/425 was the shop of Umraogiri ji ka-Math. It was also not disputed on behalf of the defendants in the written statement that Budhgiri was mahant of this math The fact of mortgage of the suit shop by Mahant Budhgiri was also not in dispute. The only dispute was 'bat according to the defendants, initial mortgage of the shop had been made by Mahant Budhgiri to the grand-father of the defendants named Chain Pam on Mangsir Sudi 13 Smt. 1954. However, it was admitted that due to further advances made to the mortgagor, the mortgage amount had become Rs. 530/- on miti Baisakh Budi 13 Smt. 1985. The execution of the document (Ex. 4) in that connection was admitted on behalf of the defendants. It was also not in dispute that Fatehgiri was disciple of Mahant Budhgiri. The defendants pleaded only want of knowledge about the former State of Mewar resuming the math and its properties under order of the Mahakma Khas dated September 2, 1944. Ex. 16 is the order of the Mahakma Khas in Revenue Department dated September 2, 1944. It appears from Ex. The defendants pleaded only want of knowledge about the former State of Mewar resuming the math and its properties under order of the Mahakma Khas dated September 2, 1944. Ex. 16 is the order of the Mahakma Khas in Revenue Department dated September 2, 1944. It appears from Ex. 16 that Mahant Fatehgiri of Umraogiriji ka Math had expired on December 6, 1943 without leaving a recognised chela and, therefore, with the sanction of the Government of the former State of Mewar, the math and the properties annexed thereto were resumed After their resumrtion it was decided that the building of the math should be given for the purpose of Ayurved department and the cash balance should be spent on that department. Consequently a rukka dated September 2, 1944 was sent by Mahakma Khas in the Revenue department to Shishu Hitkarni Sabha instructing that village Adana and other lands of miscellaneous category should be handed over to sub-district alongwith all papers relating to recovery of dues. The possession of the entire `imarat' of the math was ordered to be delivered to Ayurved department and the cash in balance was ordered to be deposited in Ayurved department. It was also ordered that report should also be made if any lard or property was in possession of any person under mortgage. Copy of this order of Mahakma Khas was forwarded to Ayurved department by Revenue department of the former State of Mewar Ex. 16 is a public document, signed by Sharif Ali, Revenue Secretary of the Government of the former State of Mewar. Chail Behari Mathur, PW-1, who was the Executive Engineer, has stated that the Public Works Department came in possession of Ex. 16 when the record of the Court of Wards was transferred to it. Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides that the court may presume that official acts have been regularly performed Civil Judge. Udaipur had rightly presumed that the official act evidenced by Ex. 16 was regularly performed. At art from that, Ex. 16 is also a public document, which is sufficient by itself to prove its contents. It is pertinent to note that Radha Kishan defendant No. 1 had himself made an application to the Munsarim of the Court of Wards stating that the shop was mortgaged with Mohan Lal and an amount of Rs. At art from that, Ex. 16 is also a public document, which is sufficient by itself to prove its contents. It is pertinent to note that Radha Kishan defendant No. 1 had himself made an application to the Munsarim of the Court of Wards stating that the shop was mortgaged with Mohan Lal and an amount of Rs. 702/3/9 were due as mortgage amount and the said amount may be paid to him. This goes to show that on the death of Mahant Fatehgiri, the math and its properties had been taken under the superintendence of Court of Wards and sometime thereafter, they were resumed under orders of Mahakma Khas (Ex 16). The defendant No. 1 had also given statement (Ex. 7) on 17th Jan , 1953 before the Public Works Department of the State of Rajasthan and in that statement he mentioned about the mortgage and also requested that the state may give the shop in suit on bapi patta to him. In his statement, Moti Lal defendant No. 2 has shown ignorance that if any proceeding for resuming math properties were taken. The defendant No. 2 tried to state in his evidence that after the death of Fatehgiri, Bhurgiri became mahant of the math and that Bhurgiri remained mahant upto 1942-43. That Bhurgiri had succeeded Fatehgiri as mahant of the math was not even pleaded by the defendant in his written statement. This theory is an after thought and has even been not established by the evidence produced by the defendants because none of the witnesses examined by the defendants had any personal knowledge about Bhurgiri having been made disciple by Fatehgiri and none were even present on any such occasion. Since the math and the properties annexed thereto had been resumed by the former State of Mewar after the death of last mahant Fatehgiri without having any recognised disciple the former State of Mewar became owner of the math and its properties and on the formation of the State of Rajasthan, the plaintiff became its owner and thus stopped in the shoes of the mortgagor. 7. The main question for determination in this second appeal is whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff -appellant on December 18, 1968 in the court of the Munsif, Udafur for possession of shop bearing Municipal No. 34/425 after redemption of the mortgage was within limitation. 7. The main question for determination in this second appeal is whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff -appellant on December 18, 1968 in the court of the Munsif, Udafur for possession of shop bearing Municipal No. 34/425 after redemption of the mortgage was within limitation. Before examining this question, the case of the parties as respectively set up by them in their pleadings may be noticed. It would appear from the contents of para 9 of the plaint that plaintiffs version had been that according to the provisions of the old limitation act, the period of limitation for redemption of the mortgage was 60 years and the same has bean reduced to 30 years by Article 61 (a) of the new limitation Act of 1963. Limitation Act, 1963 came into force on January 1, 1964, and as a consequence of the provisions contained in Section 30 (a) of the said Act as it stood on the date of the institution of the present suit, the suit could be instituted within a period of five years next after the commencement of the said Act i.e. upto December 31, 1968 and as such the suit instituted by the plaintiff on December 18, 1968 was within limitation. Reliance has also been placed upon certain acknowledgements of the mortgage as specified in para 5 of the plaint alleged to have been made by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on Various dates. The defendants' version, on the other hand in para 6 and of the written statement, has been that according to the old limitation Act. the period of limitation was 60 years for redemption of the mortgage. For the first time the suit shop had been mortgaged by Mahant Budhgir with the grand-father of the defendants named Chain Ram on mitt Mangsir Sudi 18 Smt. 1954 and the limitation period of 60 years already stood expired on miti Mangsir Sudi 13 Smt. 2014. It was denied that any cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on miti Baisakh Budi 1 Smt. 1985. 8. It is true that originally the suit shop had beta mortgaged by Mahant Somwargiri for a consideration of Rs. 200/- in favour of Chain Ram (grand- lather of the defendants) on miti Mangsir Sudi 13 Smt. 1954 as stands established from the mortgage deed (Ex A/1) as well as the recitals in the mortgage deed (Ex. 8. It is true that originally the suit shop had beta mortgaged by Mahant Somwargiri for a consideration of Rs. 200/- in favour of Chain Ram (grand- lather of the defendants) on miti Mangsir Sudi 13 Smt. 1954 as stands established from the mortgage deed (Ex A/1) as well as the recitals in the mortgage deed (Ex. 4) executed by Mahant Budhgiri in favour of Mohan Lal (father of the defendants) on mini Baisakh Budi 13 Smt. 1985. However, it is also clear from Ex. 4, which is an admitted document between the parties, that after including the mortgage amount of Rs. 300/- due under the mortgage deed Ex. A/1 and the further advance of Rs. 230/- taken by Mahant Budhgiri, a fresh mortgage deed (Ex. 4) was executed by Mahant Budhgiri in favour of Mohan Lal son of Chain Ram on miti Baisakh Budi 13 Smt 1985 (corresponding to April 16, 1928). It is very pertinent to note that in the mortgage-deed (Ex. 4) it was stipulated that the mortgage could only be redeemed by the mortgagor on payment of the entire mortgage amount and the expenses that may incurred by the mortgagee on the shop in lumpsum on the expiry of a period of eleven years from the date of the mortgage. The mortgager could not redeem the mortgage before the expiry of the stipulated period of eleven years. Thus it is clear that right to redeem or to recover possession of the mortgaged shop by redemption could accrue to the mortgagor only after the expiry of eleven years from the date of the mortgage i.e on April 16, 1939 and not before that. Reference in ibid connection may be made to the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in (2) Bakhtawar Begum v. Ilussaini Khanum, AIR 1914 IPC, 36 , 9. On miti Mangsir Sudi 7 Samvat 1988 corresponding to Dec. 16, 1931, Royal assent was given to Kanoon Mivad Mewar which was enacted as Act No. 2 of Samwat 1988. That Act came into force with effect from July 1, 1932. Section 2 of the Act read with Articles 1, 2 and 7 of the Schedule appended to the Act prescribed the period of limitation in former princely State of Mewar for Suits based on and arising from mortgages. That Act came into force with effect from July 1, 1932. Section 2 of the Act read with Articles 1, 2 and 7 of the Schedule appended to the Act prescribed the period of limitation in former princely State of Mewar for Suits based on and arising from mortgages. A learned Singe Judge of this Court in Bhera Vs Rameswar Lal reported in ILR (1968) 18 Rajasthan 140 held that, on balance of all considerations, it would be proper and fair to give effect to the plain language of Article 2 and not to read the words "suits arising out of registered documents" in this Article and be held that Article 2 of the schedule provided for all suits of redemption arising out of all kinds of documents registered or unregistered and so far as Article 7 was concerned. it was general and residuary article in the sense that it provided for suits between mortgagees and mortgagees excluding suits relating to redemption which were hell to fall within article 2 of the Schedule which prescribed a limitation period of 80 years from the date of cause of action. It may however, be mentioned that against the above mentioned decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, a special appeal was preferred by the defendant and the special appeal was decided by a Bench of this court by its decision reported in 1971 WLN 684. The Division Bench held that Article 2 in the list appended to the Kanoon Miyad Mewar No. 2 of Smt. 1988 applied to suits for redemption based on registered mortgages. It was Article 7, which provided a limitation of 15 years, that applied when slit for redemption was based on an unregistered mortgage. I am bound by the Bench decision reported in 1911 WLN. 684. 10. As already discussed, cause of action accrued to the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage only after the expiry of the period of eleven Years fixed for the payment of mortgage money in Ex. 4 i.e. on April 10, 1939. Kanoon Moyad Mewar, Smt. 1988 had already came into force much before April 16, 1939. Ex. 684. 10. As already discussed, cause of action accrued to the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage only after the expiry of the period of eleven Years fixed for the payment of mortgage money in Ex. 4 i.e. on April 10, 1939. Kanoon Moyad Mewar, Smt. 1988 had already came into force much before April 16, 1939. Ex. 4 was an unregistered mortgage deed and the period of limitation in former State of Mewar for a suit for redemption based on an unregistered mortgage was 15 years reckoned from the date of accrual of cause of action by virtue of Article 7 of the Schedule appended to the said Kanoon. The period of limitation was thus to expire on April 16, 1954. 11. The normal rule is that the law of Limitation application to a suit is the law in force at the date of the institution of the suit. The present suit was instituted on December 18, 1968. Limitation Act of 1963 had come into force on January 1, 1964. Provisions contained in the Limitation Act of 1963 would, therefore, apply to the present suit so far as limitation applicable to the suit is concerned. It may here be noticed that before the period of limitation of 15 years for the present suit as provided for in Article 7 of the Schedule appended to the Mewar Act of Samvat 1988 could expire on April 16, 1954. Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 had came into force with effect from April 1, 1951 which extended the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 to part B States (i.e. the State of Rajasthan and other Part B states" and also inserted Section 30 in the Indian Act of 1908. Section 30 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 as inserted by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 read as under : "Notwithstanding anything herein contained, any suit for which the period of limitation prescribed this Act is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by any law corresponding to this Act in force in a Part B State which is repealed by the Part B State (Laws) Act 1951, may be instituted within the period of two years next after the coming into force of this Act in that Part B State or within the period of prescribed for such suit by such corresponding law whenever period expires first." 12. After the formation of the State of Rajasthan, Kanoon Miyad Mewar of Smt. 1989 was continued in force in the area of the convenanting former Mewar State by the Rajasthan Administration Ordinance, 1949. The State of Rajasthan was Part B State. The period of limitation prescribed by Article 148 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 for a suit against a mortgagee to redeem or to recover possession of immovable property mortgaged was 60 years & was thus not shorter than the period of limitation of 15 years prescribed by Article 7 of the Schedule appended to the Kanoon Miyad Mewar of Smt. 1988 which was the corresponding law in force in the area of former Mewar State which formed part of Part B State of Rajasthan and which Kanoon was repealed by the Part B State (Laws) Act, 1951 and consequently Section 30 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 as inserted by the Part B State Law) Act, 1951, was not attracted and did not apply. 7 he right of suit in the instant case was subsisting at the time when the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 came into force in the State of Rajasthan and the mortgagor was entitled to get the extention in the period of limitation provided for in Article 148 of the lndian Limitation Act, 1948 On the basis of the mortgage of Miti Baisakh Budi 13 Smt. 95, corresponding to April 16, 1928), the mortgagor could thus file suit for redemption of the mortgage and possession of mortgaged property upto April 16, 1999 i.e. within sixty years from the date when the right to redeem or to recover possession accrued As already stated, the suit in the instant case was instituted on December 18, 1968. With effect from 1st January, 1964, the Limitation Act, 1963 came into force and the Indian Limitation Act of 1908 stood repealed. Article 61 (a) of the Limitation Act of 1953 reduced the period of limitation for a suit to redeem or to recover possession of immovable property mortgaged from 60 years to 30 years and by virtue of Article 112, the same period of 30 years applied to a suit instituted by the State Government. Article 61 (a) of the Limitation Act of 1953 reduced the period of limitation for a suit to redeem or to recover possession of immovable property mortgaged from 60 years to 30 years and by virtue of Article 112, the same period of 30 years applied to a suit instituted by the State Government. Since there was reduction in the period of limitation by the Limitation Act of 1963, the provisions contained in Section 30 of the limitation Act of 1963, as it stood when the present suit was instituted were immediately attracted. Section 30 (a) of the Limitation Act, 1963 as it is good at the relevant time, read as under : (a) any suit for which the period of limitation "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, is shorter than the period of limitation prescribe by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908). may be instituted within a period of live years next after the commencement of this Act or within the period prescribed for such suit by the Indian Limitation Act, 1968, whichever period expires earlier." It may be stated that by Central Act No. 10 of 1969, the word "seven" was substituted for the word "five" in Clause (a) of Section 30 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and a proviso was also inserted to the Section. The plaintiff, who has succeeded as mortgagor, could thus file the suit to redeem his mortgage to recover possession of immovable property mortgaged upto December 31, 1968 i.e. within a period of live years next after the commencement of the Limitation Act of 1963 as provided for in section 30 (a) of the said Act. The suit was filed on December 18, 1968 and was clearly within limitation even if the alleged acknowledgement contained in Ex. 7 is ignored. The suit was filed on December 18, 1968 and was clearly within limitation even if the alleged acknowledgement contained in Ex. 7 is ignored. The Civil Judge, Udaipur and even the Munsif, Udaipur failed to take notice of the fact that the right to redeem and to recover possession of the mortgaged property (shop) by redemption could accrue to the mortgagor only after the expiry of eleven years from the date of the mortgage i.e. on April 16, 1939 and they also failed to take into account the fact that the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 had been extended to the State of Rajasthan by Part B State (Law) Act, 1951 and also the impact of Section 30(a) of the Limitation Act of 1963 which was the law of limitation in force on the date of the filing of the present snit by the plaintiff. In view of the above conclusions arrived at suit instituted by the State of Rajasthan against the respondents-mortgagees was clearly within limitation. 13. Consequently, this second appeal is allowed, the judgment and the decree of the Civil Judge, Udaipur dated October 3, 1973 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for redemption of the mortgagee is decreed. It is decreed and ordered that the plaintiff appellant shall deposit the mortgage amount of Rs. 642/- in the court of the Munsiff, Udaipur within six months and on its doing same the defendants respondents shall deliver the possession of the suit shop detailed and described in para 1 of the plaint alongwith all documents relating to the mortgage of the shop to the plaintiff. The defendants will be entitled to withdraw the amount of mortgage money of Rs. 692/- which may be deposited by the plaintiff in the court of Munsiff, Udaipur. In case, the defendants fail to deliver the possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff despite the hitter depositing the mortgage of Rs. 692/- in court and the documents relating to the mortgage of the suit shop as directed above, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover possession of the suit shop and the documents from the defendants by the process of execution of the decree passed in accordance with this judgment and by other legal process permitted by law. The plaintiff-appellant will get costs of the suit throughout from the defendants-respondents.Appeal allowed. *******