VELU Vs. LEKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a possessory mortgage and puravaippa having been denied the relief for khas possession in the decrees granted to him by the courts below has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) The facts are few and simple. Kidangassery Tharananellur Illom the jenmi leased on verumpattom an item of land to Kurunhikattil Manickan and another item to Manali Makkotha. During the subsistence of these leases the lessor in the year 1080 executed an usufructuary mortgage (Ext. A) and in 1092 a purakadam deed (Ext. E) to Manickan's son and heir, Raman. These are the possessory mortgage and purakadam which form the basis of the suit. In 1081 Makkotha attorned to Raman. After obtaining the purakadam Raman apportioned an amount of Rs. 50/- from out of the mortgage money of Rs. 200/- and a further advance Rs. 50/- for the puramkadam upon the item in Makkotha's possession as lessee and assigned that part of his rights to Makkotha (Ext. G). The illom assigned its right over both the items to the plaintiff in 1120 Ext. B). Meanwhile the rights of Makkotha had by several transfers and transmissions details whereof are unnecessary for the case, devolved upon Kallata Kochuraman. Kochuraman surrendered the property to the plaintiff. Having thus obtained possession of one of the items on payment of the proportionate part of the mortgage and purakadam amounts he brought the suit for redemption of the other item on payment of the balance amount and claiming khas possession though the mortgagee was not inducted into possession along with the mortgage on the allegation that the antecedent lease terminated with the mortgage whereafter the relationship between the parties was merely one of mortgagor and mortgagee and not of lessor and lessee.

(3.) The defence was that the lease did not terminate with but survived the mortgage whose redemption would have the effect of only freeing the property from the encumbrance thereunder leaving the lessee in possession thereof as such. The question that arose for consideration therefore was as regards the effect of the mortgage transaction upon the preexisting lease. Both the courts below concurred in the conclusion which was against the plaintiff.