SUBHADRA KUNHAMMA Vs. SANKUNNY MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Paliam Estate, is the appellant. The suit is for redemption. The plaint properties belong to the Paliam Estate. According to the plaintiff, they were given on usufructuary mortgage to the first defendants mother, Kunjikavu Amma, on 24.4.1076 for Rs. 668/-. Ext. VII is copy of the mortgage deed. Ext. H is the either deed executed by the mortgagee. After the death of Kunjikavu Amma the first defendant is in possession of the properties. The plaintiff sued for redeeming the mortgage after setting off the mortgage amount against arrears of michavaram and claimed future mesne profits at the rate of 138 paras of paddy per year. Defendants 2 to 4 are lessees under the first defendant.

(2.) The first defendant contended that Ext. VII is not a mortgage but is an irredeemable kanam, that Kunjikavu Amma was in possession of the properties even before the date of Ext. VII, that the properties were not liable to be redeemed, that michavaram tendered was not accepted, that there was no valid tender of the mortgage money and that, in case of redemption, he was entitled to get the value of improvements effected in the properties. The second defendant contended that he had effected improvements in the properties worth Rs. 1500/-.

(3.) The main question for decision in the suit was whether Ext. VII was a redeemable mortgage or an irredeemable kanom. The court below found that it was an irredeemable kanom and consequently the prayer for redemption was disallowed. Plaintiff was given a decree for arrears of michavaram, kazhcha and tax till date of suit at the rate claimed in the plaint. Plaintiff and the first defendant were directed to pay and receive proportionate costs.