SAVITHRI AMMAL Vs. R M SP RAMASAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants. The four appeals along with the transfer appeal are filed against the common judgment dismissing their suits for recovery of Rs.45,854/-Rs.45,854/-, Rs.45,854/-, Rs.45,854/- and Rs.26,882/- respectively due on mortgage.

(2.) The parties are described as per their rankings before the trial court. The plaintiffs belong to the same family and are the mother, the father and the sons.

(3.) The plaintiffs, in their pleadings, have stated that the first defendant, as the family manager, was carrying on paddy business and the plaintiffs had supplied the paddy to them. According to them, defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. Nos.38, 65, 40 and 69 of 1986 respectively, who remained ex parte before the trial court and who were the owners of the suit properties, had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- each from the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.38/86, 40,86 and 65/86 on 16.6.1969, 14.9.1969, 15.9.1969 and also Rs.14,650/- from the plaintiff in O.S. No.69/86 on 15.9.1969, agreeing to repay at 6% interest and prescribing the period of redemption as one year, executing separate mortgage deeds. They further state that defendants 1 to 4 were adjudicated as insolvents and the property is vested with the Official Receiver. It is also stated that the other defendants, viz. defendants 5 and 6 in O.S. Nos.38/1986 and 40/1986, the 5th defendant in O.S. No.65/1986 and defendants 5 to 8 in O.S. No.69/1986 are the subsequent purchasers and the mortgages are binding on them. It is stated that the Official Receiver is also added as a respondent and that defendants 8 and 9 in O.S. No.38/1986, the 7th defendant in O.S. No.65/1986 and the 10th defendant in O.S. No.69/1986 are subsequent mortgagees and hence, they are also impleaded as parties. The plaintiffs have pleaded that though the suit claim is more than three years, i.e. from 16.9.1970, the same is in time as the plaintiffs were prevented from filing the suit between 15.1.1975 and 17.1.1978 on account of the moratorium laws. According to them, they believed bonafide that defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to the benefits of those laws and hence they refrained from initiating proceedings during the period from 1975 to 1978. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayed for a preliminary decree directing defendants 1 to 4 to deposit the suit amount and on their failure, to bring and sell the mortgage properties for realisation of the suit amount.