LAWS(KER)-2013-5-180

GOPALA KAMMATHI MADHAVAKAMMATHI Vs. SUBBARAYA PAI VISWANATHA PAI

Decided On May 24, 2013
GOPALA KAMMATHI MADHAVAKAMMATHI Appellant
V/S
SUBBARAYA PAI VISWANATHA PAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the first defendant in O.S. No.109 of 1981 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom, who is the appellant in A.S. No.170 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kottayam. The respondents herein are the respondents in the Appeal. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the Suit and the 3rd respondent is the 13th defendant.

(2.) The respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs in the suit filed suit for redemption of the plaint schedule property. It was averred in the suit that the plaint schedule property having an extent of 7.5 cents belongs to plaintiffs and the 13th defendant/ respondents by virtue of allotment in their favour under a partition deed in 1960. The property was mortgaged in favour of the appellant under Ext.A1 deed bearing No.5552 dated 23.11.1963, by the second plaintiff/ second respondent, mother of respondents 1 and 3 who were then minors for a consideration of Rs. 200/-. In the mortgage deed, the mortgagee was directed to improve the property by filling up the land and putting up shop building. After the mortgage deed, the first defendant/ appellant constructed a shop building. Defendants 2 to 12 in the suit are lessees and sub lessees of the shop in the building constructed by the first defendant/ appellant.

(3.) The appellant/ first defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs are not entitled to redeem the property. The first defendant had effected valuable improvements because there was an understanding by the second respondent that the property would be assigned to the appellant as and when the first plaintiff and 13th defendant/respondents 1 and 3 attain majority. At the time of mortgaging the property, it was a low lying land with pond and thodu. It was filled up by putting soil. A pucca building was constructed and a retaining wall to avoid erosion of soil towards north was also constructed. He had spent more than Rs. 64,000/-. He had digged a well spending more than Rs. 1,500/-.