GOWRAMMA Vs. M SACHIDANANDA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Most of the facts are admitted. The matrix of the case can be summarised as follows: The property in question originally belonged to one M. Rajasekhariah and his mother Chennamma Both of them mortgaged the suit property in favour of the defendant pursuant to a registered mortgage deed dated 27.04,1960 for a sum of Rs. 500/-. The said mortgage is with possession i.e., a usufructuary mortgage. Since the date of mortgage, the defendant is in possession of the suit property as a mortgagee. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from its owner M. Rajasekhariah pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 01.05.1988. It is his case that co-owner Smt. Chennamma is not heard for over a period of 15 years prior to the filing of the suit. After he purchased the suit property, plaintiff asked the defendant to accept the mortgage amount and deliver possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. In this regard, a notice was also issued to the defendant on 26.05.1988, but the defendant however did not respond. Hence, the plaintiff exercised his right to redeem the property and filed a suit on 13.11.1988. The plaintiff also deposited the mortgage money of Rs. 500A.

(3.) The defendant, on appearance has contested the proceedings inter alia contending that the plaintiffs vendor M. Rajasekhariah did not have exclusive right to alienate the suit property, as such the plaintiff does not acquire a valid tile over the suit property. He further pleaded that the suit premise belonged to the Joint family of M. Rajasekhariah, his father and uncle. There is no actual division by metes and bounds in respect of the suit schedule property.