LUKKA CHACKO Vs. NEELAKANTAN MOOTHATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is 6th defendant in O.S. 266 of 1098 of Vaikom Munsiffs Court. The decree is for redemption of a mortgage on payment of mortgage money and value of improvements. The final decree is dated 10.11.1104. In execution the appellant contended among other things that the paddy due under the decree is not properly valued, that plaintiffs claim for michavarom from the date of decree till the date of the recovery of property is not sustainable and that in any case interest cannot be allowed on michavarom. The lower court repelled the contentions and hence this appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant pressed before us all the three contentions. The contention in regard to the commutation rate of paddy may be disposed of first. The lower court finds that the paddy has to be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of the first execution application. The counsel for the appellant contends that paddy has to be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of actual deposit. We do not find our way to accept either view. In Mathunni v. Kocheappan, reported in 1948 TLR 110 the court lays down the following rules in regard to the commutation rate of paddy -

(3.) In the case before us the decree is not for future rent or future mesne profits and hence the second rule does not apply. We do not therefore accept the finding of the lower court that paddy has to be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of its first execution application. We do not also find any authority for the position that the paddy has to be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of deposit. We think that the first rule laid down in the decision in 1940 TLR 110 applies to this case. It is true that this is not a suit for recovery of paddy. But the principle accepted in the decision applies to this case. On the date of suit the mortgagor did not offer paddy. If he had offered, the mortgagee was bound to accept it. As the mortgagor did not offer paddy on the date of the suit it is only reasonable that the mortgagee should be paid its equivalent as on that date. We find from the Trial Court decree that the mortgagor valued paddy on the date of suit at 7 fanams. We therefore hold that the mortgagor has to deposit at 7 fanams per para for the mortgage amount.