K.G.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR Vs. K.G.KOMALAVALLYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant.

(2.) The suit property belonged to one Kesavan Nair. He mortgaged the same to one Gopalan Nair. Ext.B1 is the mortgage deed. While Ext.B1 mortgage was outstanding, Kesavan Nair assigned the property to Parukutty Amma. Parukutty Amma was none other than the wife of Gopalan Nair. The plaintiff and the defendants are the children of Gopalan Nair and Parukutty Amma. According to the plaintiff, Ext.B1 mortgage was not redeemed and as such, the suit property is liable to be partitioned as a property owned by Gopalan Nair. The plaintiff claimed 1/6 share over the suit property on that basis. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 remained ex parte. The third defendant resisted the suit. According to the third defendant, Parukutty Amma redeemed the mortgage on 15.2.1974 and thus, she became the absolute owner of the property. He also contended that later on 23.5.2001, Parukutty Amma bequeathed the suit property to him. As such, according to the third defendant, on the death of Parukutty Amma, he became the absolute owner of the suit property.

(3.) The trial court found that Ext.B1 mortgage was redeemed by Parukutty Amma as contended by the third defendant and that Parukutty Amma had bequeathed the suit property thereafter to the third defendant. In the light of the said findings, the plaintiff was non-suited. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The appellate court, however, reversed the decision of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for holding that the third defendant has not established that Ext.B1 mortgage has been redeemed by Parukutty Amma. The third defendant is aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate court and hence this second appeal.