ABOOBACKER BABU HAJI Vs. EDAKKODE PATHUMMAKUTTY UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court dated 28/5/2002.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: the respondents filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The appellants in their defence claimed protection of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The matter was therefore referred to the Land Tribunal. Before the Land Tribunal two contentions were taken: (i) that there was an oral lease given in the year 1941, and (ii) that the mortgage deed of 1951 was in reality a lease. The Land Tribunal concluded that there had been an oral lease in 1941 but did not decide the second question. On the basis of the finding of the Land Tribunal the suit was dismissed by the trial court.

(3.) The respondents filed an appeal. The appellate court held that the document was a deed of mortgage. On the basis of that document the appellate court decreed the suit. The appellants filed an appeal to the High Court which has been dismissed. The High Court has confirmed the finding that the document was a deed of mortgage. The High Court has, however, accepted the argument that even if redemption was to be allowed, the value of improvements made had to be taken into consideration. The High Court has, therefore, remitted the case back to the trial court to determine the value of improvements.