CHERUPUSHPA AGATHI MANDIRAM Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned District Judge allowing redemption in favour of the plaintiff.A.S.No.218 of 1956 is the appeal by defendants 2 and 3 and A.S.No.222 of 1956 is the appeal by the first defendant.

(2.) THE suit itself was for redemption of the mortgage evidenced by Ext.A dated 30 -3 -1081 as also the puravaipa,Ext.B,dated 16 -11 -1086.The title of the plaintiff to the suit properties does not appear to be in dispute but the suit for redemption was opposed on the ground that the plaintiff has no right to redeem the mortgage and the puravaipa alone so long as the arrangement under the lease transa­ction,Ext.C,continues either by virtue of a contract between the parties or by virtue of a later enactment which has come into force.

(3.) MR .M.K.Narayana Menon,learned counsel appearing for the first defendant appellant in A.S.222 of 1956 and Mr.K.K.Mathew learned counsel appearing for defendants 2 and 3,the appellants in A.S.218 of 1956,advanced substantially the same arguments to show that the reasoning of the learned Judge is not correct.According to the learned counsel,the recitals in Ext.A.taken with the recitals in Ext.C.clearly go to show that the parties contemplated a single arrangement under these documents and they further contemplated redemption of the mortgage along with the extinguishment of the rights under the lease.To put it in another way,the learned counsel contended that so long as the lease arrangement is not terminated the right to redeem the simple mortgage under Ext.A or the puravaipa under Ext.B does not arise in this case.The exact recitals which have been relied upon by Mr.Narayana Menon and Mr.Mathew will be considered by me immediately.