SYED AMANULLA Vs. KHASIM KHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE appellant was the first defendant before the trial court. It was the case of the plaintiff that the second defendant and his mother, Lalithamma were the owners of the suit schedule property and they had mortgaged the suit schedule property with possession in favour of the first defendant on 10.12.1962 under a registered deed and the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the first defendant. The first defendant was in possession as the mortgagee. The term was for a period of 15 years and the mortgage amount was Rs. 2,500/ -. The mortgage was redeemable on 9.12.1977. The second defendant and his children are said to have sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff under sale deeds dated 9.6.1988 and 23.6.1988. The sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff was said to have been intimated to the first defendant by a notice dated 24.6.1988. The plaintiff therefore had purchased the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs. 85,000/ -. The sale was subject to redemption of mortgage by paying the mortgage amount of Rs. 2,500/ - to the first defendant and to recover possession from him. The plaintiff therefore claimed as the bona fide purchaser of the suit schedule property. Since the first defendant had set up a false claim of also being an agreement holder in respect of the suit schedule property, had filed a suit for specific performance in OS 1013/1989, which was also pending before the very court in which the present suit was filed. And it was in that background that the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to redeem the mortgage and had deposited the entire amount of Rs. 2,500/ - and the suit was filed seeking the following reliefs, namely,

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to redemption of the mortgage as prayed in the plaint and possession of the suit schedule property?