BHAVANI SANTHAKUMARI Vs. SAHADEVAN RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 4 and 6 in O.S. No. 1034/1984 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara, are the appellants in this second appeal. The said suit was one for redemption of Exts. A2 and A3 mortgages in respect of the plaint C and D schedule properties and for putting up a boundary on the western side of the plaint D schedule property.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:- The plaintiff is the son of Sahadevan and Gouri Sarasamma. The plaint C schedule property admeasuring 10 1/2 cents was allotted to Gouri Sarasamma, the mother of the plaintiff, as per a partition deed of the year 1123 M.E. corresponding to 1948. The plaint D schedule property, also admeasuring 10 1/2 cents, was allotted to Govindan Sukumaran as per the said partition deed. The said Govindan Sukumaran mortgaged the plaint D schedule property to Gouri Sarasamma and her husband Sahadevan as per Ext. A1 mortgage deed dt. 7.6.1951. Thus, the plaintiff's parents were in possession and enjoyment of the plaint C and D schedule properties. As per Ext. A2 mortgage deed dt. 11.4.1955, Gouri Sarasamma and her husband Sahadevan mortgaged the plaint C and D schedule properties to one Lakshmi Bhavani, the mother of defendants 1 to 5, after borrowing a sum of Rs. 50/-. Gouri Sarasamma and her husband Sahadevan thereafter executed a further sub mortgage of the plaint C and D schedule properties to one Sivanandan, the father of defendants 1 to 5, as per Ext. A3 mortgage dt. 20.2.1956 for a sum of Rs. 140/-. The original mortgagees viz. Sivanandan and Lakshmi Bhavani died and their rights have devolved on defendants 1 to 6. The 6th defendant is the husband of the 4th defendant. The parents of the plaintiff are dead. Their right devolved on their children including the plaintiff and the 7th defendant. The other legal heirs, excluding the 7th defendant, assigned their right over the properties in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 are in possession of the property lying adjacent to the plaint schedule property. There is no boundary separating the two properties. The defendants have not effected any improvements in the property in their possession. They are committing waste in the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgages in respect of the plaint C and D schedule properties. The defendants refused to surrender possession of the properties on receipt of the mortgage money. Hence the suit.

(3.) FOUR issues were framed by the Trial Court. On the side of the plaintiff 4 documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A4 and on the side of the defendants 2 documents were marked as Exts. B1 and B2. No oral evidence were adduced on either side. Exts. C1 and C2 are the report and plan submitted by the advocate commissioner and Ext. C3 is the mahazar report prepared by the earlier advocate commissioner.