THANKAMONY Vs. RETNAM NADATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in a suit for redemption are the Appellants. The decree granted in their favour by the trial court was set aside and reversed by the lower appellate court, by which, the suit was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the Plaintiffs have come up with this appeal.

(2.) Short facts involved in the case can be summed up thus: Suit property having an extent of 25.5 cents belonged to one late Kesavan Nadar, and he had mortgaged the property in favour of the Defendant, who is the wife of his elder brother, namely, Govindan Nadar, under Ext. A-l deed. The Defendant continues in possession as a mortgagee under the above deed, is not in dispute. Kesavan Nadar is no more. The Plaintiffs claiming as the daughter and wife of Kesavan Nadar laid the suit. The right of the Plaintiffs to redeem the property from the Defendant was challenged by the mortgagee disputing their status as legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar. Admittedly, the 2nd Plaintiff was the wife of another elder brother of late Kesavan Nadar, namely, Madhavan Nadar. After the death of Madhavan Nadar, his younger brother Kesavan Nadar married the 2nd Plaintiff, and out of their marital relationship, the 1st Plaintiff was begotten, and, thus, as the legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar, they are entitled to redeem the mortgage property, was the case of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant, disputing the status of the Plaintiffs, contended that the 2nd Plaintiff is a Christian and she was married in accordance with the Christian rites and ceremonies in a Church by Madhavan Nadar. She was not the wife of Kesavan Nadar and the 1st Plaintiff not the child of Kesavan Nadar, according to the Defendant. Kesavan Nadar died unmarried and as per the personal law of succession applicable, his siblings including Govindan Nadar, husband of the Defendant, who were alive on his death, became entitled to his estate left behind. Refuting the entitlement of the Plaintiffs to redeem the property, the Defendant also contended that she has effected valuable improvements to the tune of 25,000, and in the event of redemption, she should be compensated for such improvements.

(3.) On the materials placed, which consisted of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and Exts. A-1 to A-4 for the Plaintiffs, D. Ws. 1 to 5 and Ext. B-1 for the Defendant, reports prepared by the Advocate Commissioner as Exts. C-1 and C-2 and third party Exts. X-1 to X-3 series, the trial court repelling the contentions of the Defendant concluded that Kesavan Nadar had married the 2nd Plaintiff and the 1st Plaintiff was the child born to them out of the wedlock, and, thus, both the Plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the mortgaged property on payment of the mortgage price inclusive of the value of improvements as assessed and fixed in Ext.C-2 report by the Advocate Commissioner. The decree granted allowing redemption of the property by the trial court in favour of the Plaintiffs, as indicated above, was challenged in appeal by the Defendant mainly impeaching the finding entered over the status of the Plaintiffs as legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar to redeem the mortgaged property.