H K DASAPPA SETTY Vs. M C JAYAKRITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal brought on behalf of defendant 9 and it arises out of a suit brought by the respondent-plaintiff for redemption of a, mortgage dt.8th November 1915 under which a house site and a one half share in Vrithi were mortgaged with possession by one Laxmipathi Pandit in favour of Chandappa and another for a term of 10 years. The consideration for the mortgage was as follows: (a) Rs.100 received in cash: (b) Rs.1,100 to be paid to discharge a prior mortgage of C. Nagappa: (c) Rs.300 to be paid to discharge debt due to Anantharajaiah. The finding of the Courts below is that the debt items (b) and (c) were not discharged by the mortgagee, and therefore that the mortgage is supported by consideration only to the extent of Rs.100. Ext.P26 is a registration copy of the mortgage deed.Under the terms of the mortgage the mortgagee undertook to pay the revenue due from the Vrithi lands. On 23-5-1918 the Vrithies were partitioned and the. suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of Laxmipathi the mortgagor. On 24th July 1925 the mortgage effected a sub-mortgage in favour of one Venkataramana Setty, uncle of defendats 1 and 10. There was a partition in the sub-mortgagee's family under which the mortgage properties were allotted to defendants 8 and 10. Laxmipathi died, leaving defendants 12 and 13 aa his hears. Defendants 12 and 13 conveyed their right in the equity of redemption to the plaintiff for a, consideration of Rs.400 on 2-7-1952.

(2.) Neither the mortgagee nor sub-mortgagee pajd the revenue to the Government from the Vrithi lands and therefore there was a revenue sale Of the lands under which the suit property was purchased by one K. Venkataramana Setty. The sale was confirmed on 16th August 1937. On 2nd September 1940 the purchaser K. Venkataramana Setty sold his right to the family of defendant 9.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 6, 12 and 13 remained ex parte. The name of 7th defendant was deleted. Defendant 9 was the contesting defendant. He contended, inter alia, that there is no subsisting mortgage and that the suit is barred by limitation.