PUSHPARAJAN P. Vs. PARAMBATH MOIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (1) What has been created by the parties through Ext.A1, is a mortgage or lease?

(2.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Nadapuram in O. S. No. 183/2011 followed by those of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vadakara in A. S. No. 7/2014, the defendant in the suit has come up in second appeal.

(3.) The suit is one for redemption of mortgage. The case of the plaintiff is that the scheduled shop room owned by the plaintiff was mortgaged to the defendant by accepting a mortgage amount of Rs.1,500.00 on 06/09/1988, by way of usufructuary mortgage, for a period of six months on a monthly profit calculated at Rs.600.00. Subsequently, the monthly profit was increased to Rs.1,075.00. Even after repeated requests and demands, the defendant has not cared to surrender vacant possession of the scheduled shop room and therefore, the plaintiff caused to issue Ext.A2 lawyer's notice. According to the plaintiff, the notice evoked a response in the form of a reply thereby resorting to false and untenable contentions, and hence the suit.