KURUVILA ANNA Vs. VARGHESE ANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arises in execution of a decree for redemption of a mortgage in favour of the respondent plaintiff as against the appellant defendant 1. The 1st defendant would appear to have claimed the value of two sheds put up by him in the mortgage holding while fixing the redemption price due to him and obtained an amount of Rs. 26/- on that account. Inconsistently he also would seem to have contended that he was a kudikidappukaran with respect to those sheds. But the objection was overruled and so the redemption decree followed. Vide Ext. P-2 judgment.

(2.) In execution appellant would again set up Kudikidappu rights and that on basis of a resignation as such anterior to the redemption suit and decree. This claim was overruled on grounds variously set forth by the courts below. However the second appeal by the 1st defendant reiterating his Kudikidappu right. It is enough to meet the appellants claim by the reason relied on by the lower court viz., that no Kudikidappu right can enure during the currency of a usufructuary mortgage and again on this footing a shed erected by the mortgagee in the mortgage holding. The position is much more difficult so far as this defendant against whom a decretal declaration has been made.

(3.) There is no merit in the appeal. It is therefore dismissed with costs.