B THIPPESWAMY Vs. GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the plaintiff in O. S. 123/2004 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), challakere, filed against the respondent, to pass a judgment and decree directing the defendant to redeem the mortgage property by paying loan amount of Rs. 77,800/-with future interest, failing which, to sell the suit schedule property in public auction for realising the amount. Respondent has contested the suit. Based on the pending, trial court has framed issues on 28-6-2005. During the course of trial of the suit question arose, as to whether the mortgage deed produced by plaintiff should be received in evidence. Since it was noticed that, the deed was an unregistered deed. After hearing learned counsel on both sides about admissibility of the mortgage deed in evidence, trial Court has held that the deed is inadmissible in evidence. Questioning the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) SRI B. M. Siddappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had on 17-10-2005, submitted before this Court, that the petitioner proposes to confine his relief in the plaint, only for recovery of money and not for redemption of mortgage. On 24-10-2005, after receiving the memo filed restricting the prayer only for recovery of money and not for redemption of mortgage, emergent notice of the writ petition was ordered to be issued to the respondent.

(3.) I heard Sri B. M. Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri C. Shivakumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent and perused the record of writ petition.