1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO.178/2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.377/2004 Laxman Bapu Ingawale and another. ..Appellants -VERSUS- Ramchandra Bapu Ingawale and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.N.R.Bubha, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 23rd MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Trial Court recorded a finding in favour of the present appellants/defendants Nos.1 and 2 that as they have paid the amount for redemption of the property mortgaged and hence it became the self acquired property of the appellants. The first Appellate Court reversing the said finding has held that redeeming mortgagor does not acquire any title to the property, but he releases the property for the entire family meaning thereby other mortgagors as well. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on 2 the judgment reported in 1993 Suppl.(2) SCC 201. Perusal of the said judgment clearly reveals the same position as recorded by the first Appellate Court, however, with a rider that redeeming co-mortgagor in possession of excess share can enforce his claim against the non- redeeming mortgagors under Section 67. It is also held that non- redeeming mortgagors are also entitled to their share on payment of amount of their share or by contribution. 3. Perused the judgment impugned in the appeal, the same is in tune with the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. This is the only question of law urged before this Court. No interference with the impugned judgment and decree is called for. Second Appeal is dismissed summarily. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is also disposed of. JUDGE