VELAYUDHAN PADMANABHAN Vs. THYAGARAJAN K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in a suit for redemption of mortgage, filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein, is the appellant. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and the suit was decreed.

(2.) The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Narayanan Asari Krishnan Asari. He died in 1947. His rights devolved on his children Kolappan Asari and Sivasubramonian Asari. Both of them passed away before 1956. The plaintiffs are the children of Kolappan Asari. The second defendant is the daughter of Sivasubramonian Asari. In 1952, Kolappan Asari and Sivasubramonian Asari executed Ext.A1 ottikuzhikanam deed in favour of the first defendant for Rs. 500/-. Ext.A1 property consists of ten cents of land excluding six jack trees and a mango tree, which were retained in the possession of the mortgagors. The land was put in the possession of the mortgagee. The period stipulated in Ext.A1 was eight years. According to the plaintiffs, Ext.A1 is a possessory mortgage. Since the daughter of Sivasubramonian Asari (one of the co-mortgagors) was not willing to join as a plaintiff, she was arrayed as the second defendant. The plaintiffs contended that themselves and the second defendant are entitled to the equity of redemption.

(3.) The first defendant contended in his written statement that after the execution of Ext.A1, the mortgagee was put in possession of the trees as well, on receipt of Rs100/- by the mortgagors. Thus the total consideration for the mortgage was Rs600/-. The plaintiffs have no right to redeem. The first defendant contended that he constructed a building in the plaint schedule property spending Rs5,000/- and planted mango trees and coconut trees in the property. Value of improvements was also claimed. The first defendant also claimed kudikidappu rights. According to the first defendant, Ext.A1 amounts to a lease and the property was demised as per Ext.A1 for enjoyment of the property by the first defendant. The first defendant claimed fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.