SIVASANKARAN NAIR Vs. SANTHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in OS No.907/94 before the Sub Court, Thrissur, is the appellant. He suffered a mortgage decree. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to, as they are available before the Court below.

(2.) In the light of the scope of this appeal, the facts which are absolutely necessary for its disposal alone are being referred to in this Judgment. The suit was based on Ext.A1 mortgage deed dated 07.10.1982. The first defendant was the mortgager. The second defendant purchased the rights of the first defendant. The contention of the second defendant in the suit was that he had discharged the debt. However, he failed to prove his contention before the Court below and the suit was decreed. Hence this Appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant stressed only one aspect for consideration. It was pointed out that the pendente lite interest and the future interest are considerably high and some leniency should be shown in this regard.