VELAYUDHAN Vs. KANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants before us. The only question that arises in this second appeal is whether the appellant would come within the definition of Kudikidappukaran under S. 2 Cl. (c) of the Travancore Act XXII of 1124. S. 2 Cl. (c) runs thus:

(2.) Both the courts below have found against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that because the mortgagees had erected two buildings in the property mortgaged for which value has been directed to be paid in the decree for redemption and because these buildings were in existence and in the occupation of the appellants at the time the Act came into force, under S. 4 Cl. (2) which provides that:

(3.) The purpose of transaction must be determined as on its date and if a transaction had a purpose when it was entered into it cannot have a different purpose subsequently. The power of a mortgagee to improve the property by erecting buildings thereon and claim value therefor at the time of redemption will not make the purpose of the transaction one to make that erection.