NARAYANA KURUP Vs. RAMA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the revision Petitioner. The suit is for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage (Ex. E) dated 29 -2 -1087 for Rs. 300 and a puravaipa (Ex. F) dated 2 -11 -1089 for Rs. 50. The rent fixed in Ex. E is Rs. 25. Out of this, the morgagee is directed to appropriate Rs. 18 as interest on the mortgage amount and to pay the balance amount of Rs. 7 to the mortgagor. In the puravaipa, Ex. F, the interest on the puravaipa amount is fixed as Rs. 5 and the mortgagee is directed to appropriate this amount out of the Rs. 7 that was payable to the mortgagor under Ex. E. In the puravaipa document the mortgagor has undertaken to pay both the mortgage amount and the puravaipa amount together and to redeem the property on payment of both the amounts. The trial Court gave the Plaintiff a decree for redemption of the mortgage and puravaipa on payment of the amounts covered by the two documents.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Respondent to the effect that the order of the Court below has the force of a decree, that it is appealable and that, therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. We do not think that the order comes within the definition of a decree Decree is defined in Section 2(2) Code of Civil Procedure as

(3.) THE learned District Judge, while holding that the mortgage Ex. E is not redeemable separately from the puravaipa, Ex. F, treated the puravaipa as a separate transaction for the purpose of the applicability of Section 4(1)(b) of the Proclamation, and, since the interest on that amount is only Rs. 5 while the total rent of the property is Rs. 25, held that the interest on the puravaipa amount is less than 40 per cent of the rent. Therefore, the learned Judge held that the puravaipa came within the ambit of Section 4(1)(b) of the Proclamation.