KRISHNAN SANKARAN Vs. SANKARAN CHANNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This may be a hard case but in my opinion the appellant is not entitled to get any relief in law. The suit properties were the subject of a mortgage under Ext. A dated 20-3-1082 and the mortgage amount was a sum of Rs. 48/-. In pursuance of an assignment regarding the equity of redemption in 1122 the plaintiff instituted the present suit in 1124 for redeeming the mortgage evidenced by Ext. A. Among the several objections raised by the appellant defendant, one of the contentions was that he should get as and for value of improvements a sum of Rs. 500 before the redemption could be decreed. That is, according to him, though he took a mortgage of a paddy land he has converted it into a gardenland, and the landlord is getting the benefit of that conversion. A commissioner has gone into this matter and according to the commissioners report it is seen that the value of improvements awardable to the defendant appellant has been fixed in the sum of Rs. 176-7-10.

(2.) The plaintiff contended that the defendant appellant is not entitled to any value of improvements because the conversion of double crop paddyland into gardenland, however desirable and profitable it may be from the point of view of the mortgagee, absolutely changes the character of the land, so far as the mortgagor was concerned, and therefore far from being an improvement the defendant should be made liable for damages for having committed waste on this property. Therefore it will be seen that the plaintiff and the defendant were taking a position in extreme.

(3.) Learned District Munsiff without really considering the question as to whether in law the conversion of a paddyland into a gardenland can be considered to be an item of improvement entitling the mortgagee to the value of improvements, proceeded on a totally different basis and held that though the defendant has set up that this improvement has been effected with the express written consent of the jenmi, still in the circumstances of this case, it must be considered that the landlord has impliedly consented to the mortgagee making this improvement. The Trial Court very definitely found that the case of the defendant of the express written consent by the jenmi has not been substantiated by the evidence on record.