M S KADAMBALITHAYA Vs. BEEPATHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by the plaintiff in 0. S. No. 42 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Mangalore against the order dated 22nd November 1958 passed by the learned Subordidate Judge of Kasaragod in R. I, A. No. 984 of 1958. The following facts are not in dispute. The suit was for redemption and there were several defendants who were parties to the action. In these proceedings, this court is concerned only with the claims made by the legal representative of the original 8th defendant, namely, the present respondent No. 173. There was a preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court on 15-4-1946 under which the following directions were given: (a) the plaintiff was to deposit the mortgage amount of Rs. 7,100, and (b) he was also to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,649-2-0 as value of improvements due to the various defendants, and it is also seen that the amount of value of improvements payable to the 8th defendant, in particular, from and out of this amount was a sum of Rs. 4,089-2-0; and six months' time was given to the plaintiff for making the deposits mentioned in clauses (a) and (b). In accordance with the directions contained in the preliminary decree, the plaintiff appears to have deposited both the mortgage amount and the value of improvements as per the preliminary decree.

(2.) Two sets of defendants filed A. S. Nos. 88 and 138 of 1947 to the High Court of Madras against the preliminary decree passed on 15 4 1946. Pending the disposal of the appeals, a stay of passing the final decree also appears to have been obtained. The High Court, by a common judgment dated 3 11 1955, made certain alterations in the amounts payable by the plaintiff: (a) The mortgage amount of Rs. 7,100 was refixed in the sum of Rs. 7,200. (b) Value of improvements of Rs. 7649-2-0 was refixed in the sum of Rs. 9852-1-4 out of which there was also a proportionate increase in the amount payable to the 8th defendant and that was refixed in the sum of Rs. 6625-7-0. (c) The plaintiff held entitled to get 6 per cent interest on the mortgage amount and value of improvements which he had already deposited by virtue of the preliminary decree from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of possession of the properties by the defendants to the plaintiff, (d). The plaintiff was also held entitled to mesne profits from the date of the deposit to the date of delivery of possession. These were the general directions given by the learned Judges of the High Court in the appeals filed by the various defendants.

(3.) Subsequent to this, the present 173rd respondent, who is the legal representative of the deceased 8th defendant, filed R. I. A. No. 751 of 1957 for a revaluation of the improvements already granted in his favour. A commissioner appears to have been appointed for the said purpose and the commissioner's report was that no further improvements had been effected by the party so as to necessitate a revaluation as asked for in that application. On this report, the court closed the proceedings in R. I. A. No. 751 of 1957, i. e., the party therein who wanted a revaluation, did not succeed.