KUMARAMKARI DEVASWOM Vs. UTHUPPU CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, on behalf of the plaintiff appellant, his learned counsel Mr. K. Velayudhan Nair raises two contentions; (1) that in the circumstances of this case the patta for Kandukrishi lands obtained by the defendant in the proceedings evidenced by Ext. E enure in favour of his client on the principle embodied in S.90 of the Trusts Act and therefore the view expressed to the contrary by both the subordinate courts is not bound in law; and (2) that the further view expressed by both the subordinate courts that when the patta for the kandukrishi land was granted by the Sirkar under the proceedings connected with Ext. E in favour of the defendant, it does have the effect, in law, of putting an end to the mortgagor-mortgagee relationship that exists in this case is also not correct in law.

(2.) In order to appreciate these two contentions raised by the learned counsel, a few facts may be stated. The suit properties, which are kandukrishi lands, were held on lease by the original owners who appear to have mortgaged their rights under Ext. C on 10-6-1057 in favour of the defendants predecessors-in-title. Ultimately, the rights of the original lessee have now devolved on the plaintiff Devaswom by virtue of the purchase under Ext. E dated 24-10-1058.

(3.) It is in evidence that at the time of the settlement the question of grant of the lease of the Kandukrishi lands seems to have been taken up by the Government and for that purpose, in respect of the suit lands as well as certain other items of property, both the plaintiff mortgagor, as well as the defendants mortgagee laid claim for the issue of patta in their favour. It is also seen that the suit properties were held as mortgagee by the defendants and there were certain other items of properties owned by the Devaswom which were held by the defendants on lease. The ultimate result of both the transactions is that the defendants were in possession of both sets of properties.