MICHAEL NADAR Vs. SUBRAMONIA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of one of three properties mortgaged by one Nesakannu Nadar in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 for 3,300 fanams. The equity of redemption was sold in connection of a decree against the mortgager and the plaintiff acquired the same from a vendee of the auction purchaser. Though the plaintiff sought redemption of only one item of property, he offered to pay the entire mortgage amount of 3,300 fanams. The defence contention so far as it is relevant for this second appeal is that the suit is bad as one for partial redemption as the defendants are entitled to consolidate three later purakkadoms with the mortgage sought to be redeemed. The three purakkadoms are Exts. II to IV which were executed by the mortgagor in their favour in 1118 and 1119 and these cover all the three items included in the original mortgage. The Trial Court overruled this contention and granted a decree to the plaintiff allowing redemption of the plaint property on payment of 3,300 fanams together with a sum of Rs. 109-7-8 as compensation for improvements effected by the defendant. On appeal, the decree was reversed and the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was bound to redeem Exts. II to IV along with the mortgage. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal from the decree of the lower appellate court.

(2.) As the plaintiff has offered to pay the entire sum of 3,300 fanams due under the mortgage the defendants do not now object on the ground that the two other properties covered by the mortgage should also have been redeemed. So the only point arising for decision is that whether the suit is bad as one for redemption of the mortgage without payment of the amount due under the three purakkadoms or in other words whether the defendants are entitled to consolidate the purakkadoms and the mortgage. Exts. II to IV provide that the same are to be redeemed along with the earlier mortgage. It was held by a Bench of this court in Pakavathi Neelakantan v. Lakshmi Pillai ( 1952 KLT 129 ).

(3.) In the result, in reversal of the decree of the lower appellate court the decree of the Trial Court is restored and the second appeal is allowed. The appellant will get his costs throughout from the respondent.