PERIYAMMAL Vs. RUKMANI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants. The suit is for redemption. The suit hypotheca belonged to one Srinivasa Iyengar, the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff, who borrowed a sum of Rupees 1,000 under a usufructuary mortgage dated 9-5-1947 executed in favour of the first defendant and his wife, Kaliammal, the mother of defendants 2 and 3. The time for redemption was three years. Kaliammal died about 1963, and defendants 2 and 3 are her heirs. The fourth defendant claimed to be in possession of the mortgaged property under defendants 2 and 3. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 sold the properties to plaintiffs 3 to 7 under a registered sale deed dated 21-1-1966 and plaintiffs 3 to 7 are entitled to redemption. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have been joined to avoid any technical objection. According to the plaintiffs the amount due under the mortgage is only Rs. 375 as per the provisions of Section 9-A of Madras Act IV of 1938. The suit is laid for the redemption of the mortgage and for recovery of possession.

(2.) THE defence to the suit was that the suit hypotheca is not the absolute property of plaintiffs 1 and 2, that it is a devadayam inam granted for chanting sahasranamam in the temple of Sri Prasanna Venkataramanaswami at Kangayam, that Srinivasa Iyengar, the husband of the first plaintiff and they father of the second plaintiff was only an oozhiadar, having no proprietary rights or interest in the inam lands, that Srinivasa Iyengar died on 20-1-1950 and that plaintiffs 1 and 2 had no right of enjoyment or title to the property as there was a total discontinuance of the services after Srinivasa Iyengar's death. The further contention of the defendants is that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have no locus standi to maintain the suit for recovery of possession, that the rights of Srinivasa Iyengar were lost by discontinuance of services for a long number of years, that the plaintiffs had forfeited all rights to such office and could not claim to redeem the mortgage and that the sale to plaintiffs 3 to 7 is void and illegal. Their further contention is that minor inams have been abolished under the provisions of the madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXX of 1963, that pursuant to the notification dated 15-2-1965, the properties have vested in the Government, that the rights of the parties have been extinguished and that the suit is not competent. The rights of the parties are governed by the provisions of the said Act, the parties have to work out their rights under that Act and the present suit is not maintainable.

(3.) THE trial court decreed the suit for redemption. While doing so, it held that plaintiffs 1 and 2 had title to the suit property, that the defendants being mortgagees could not question the title of plaintiffs 1 and 2, that plaintiffs 1 and 2 had a right to redeem the mortgage and that the suit for redemption is maintainable. The trial court further held, on the question of the correct amount due under the suit mortgage, that the plaintiffs not being agriculturists, are not entitled to the benefits of the Act and that the entire amount due under the mortgage is payable before redemption. In the result the trial court gave a decree for redemption in favour of the first plaintiff alone on payment of a sum of Rs. 1,000 and for recovery of possession of the hypotheca from the defendants, in view of the fact that the alienation in favour of plaintiffs 3 to 7 is invalid.