KURIEN Vs. NARAYANAN CHAKKIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant is the appellant. THE suit is for redeeming a mortgage, Ext. A, dated 27. 3. 1038 alleged to have been executed by the karnavan of the plaintiff's family, Neelakantan Vasudevan Chakiar, in favour of Kadanthuruthel Varki Pothen. THE mortgage right has become vested in the defendants. THE mortgage amount was 50 chukrams and the mortgagee undertook to pay michavaram at the rate of 10 chs. a year and onakazhcha of the value of 4 chukrams. It was alleged in the plaint that michavaram and onakazhcha have been paid till 1101 and that they were in arrears from 1102 onwards. It was also alleged that a sum of 250 fanams was due to the defendants as value of improvements. THE plaintiff sought to redeem the property after setting off the arrears of michavaram and onakazhcha against the mortgage amount and value of improvements. It was further alleged that the mortgage has been acknowledged by the defendants' predecessors-in-interest in sale deeds dated 28. 4. 1053 and 29. 9. 1059 and in a registered receipt dated 26. 10. 1089 and that the suit was therefore not barred by limitation.

(2.) THE second defendant alone contested the suit. He contended that the plaint property belonged to Vennimala Devaswom, that the mortgage of 1038 alleged in the plaint was false, that the predecessors-ininterest of the defendants were holding the property in their own right long prior to 1038, that the description in some documents that the property belonged to the plaintiff's family and that it was demised on kanom by the family was not correct, that even if the property belonged to the plaintiff's family and was demised on kanom by the family the kanom was irredeemable, that the receipt dated 26. 10. 1089 mentioned in the plaint is not valid, that the mukthiar-holder who is said to have taken the receipt was not competent to take it on behalf of the owner of the property, that the acknowledgments relied on by the plaintiff are not valid, that the suit was barred by limitation and that the improvements belonging to the defendants were worth more than Rs. 1,500.

(3.) IN this case, as stated already, the suit is to redeem a specific mortgage mentioned in the plaint, namely, mortgage dated 27. 3. 1038 alleged to have been executed by the karnavan of the plaintiff's family, neelakantan Vasudevan Chakiar, in favour of Kadanthuruthel Varkey Pothan, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. The terms of the mortgage deed are also set forth in the plaint and the prayer in the plaint is to redeem that specific mortgage. IN the circumstances the only question for consideration is whether the plaintiff has proved this mortgage. The plaintiff has produced Ext. A as the counter-part of the mortgage deed mentioned in the plaint. The second defendant denies its genuineness. According to him it was fabricated by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit.