PONNAMMA PILLAI Vs. BHASKARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. This second appeal arises from a suit for redemption of a mortgage and recovery of possession. The defence was that the defendant was entitled to the benefit of S.4A(1)(b) of Act I of 1964. This contention was based on the fact that the defendant had removed and reconstructed a building which originally stood on the property at the time of mortgage.

(2.) Both the Court held against the defendant and hence this second appeal.

(3.) The only question of law which falls for consideration is, whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit under S.4A (1) (b) of Act 1 of 1964. According to the defendant, he is residing in the building constructed by him. According to the plaintiff there was a building at the time of the mortgage.