K SIVAKUMAR Vs. V SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in a suit for redemption of a mortgage and for recovery of possession is the appellant herein.

(2.) The first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for the said reliefs, alleging that the suit property originally belonged to one Abdul Masjeed Rawthar; that he executed an othi in respect of the suit property by receiving Rs.4,000/- on 26.4.1971, in favour of the first defendant; that the time for redemption was shown therein as six years; that as per the terms of the othi, the first defendant was to enjoy the suit property and pay the kist during the othi period; that the said Abdul Masjeed Rawthar died leaving behind his wife Taj Beevi and two sons; that they sold the suit property for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 21.4.1987; that they received only Rs.21,000/- by way of cash and directed the plaintiff to discharge the othi by paying Rs.4,000/- and to take possession of the property from the first defendant, and thus, the plaintiff was entitled to get redemption of the suit property by paying Rs.4,000/- to the first defendant; that when the plaintiff offered the said sum of Rs.4,000/- and sought for redemption, the first defendant was evading, and she did not do so; that now the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant with an ulterior motive has put the second defendant in possession of the property in order to create loss and hardship to the plaintiff, and under such circumstances, the suit has been brought forth against both the defendants for the necessary reliefs.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement stating that at the time the mortgage was created, the property was not fit for cultivation; that the first defendant spent a sum of Rs.2,500/- with the consent of Abdul Masjeed Rawthar to reclaim the land and made it fit for cultivation; that Rawthar promised to pay for the improvements made in the land; that the first defendant did not know anything about the alleged purchase of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff never offered to redeem the othi; that he never tendered any amount; that since the first defendant was helpless, the suit property was leased out to one Sivakumar with the consent of her mortgagor; that the plaintiff can redeem the suit property subject to the tenancy of Sivakumar, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.