P SUNDARI NADACHI Vs. APPIAMMA NADACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below (now represented by legal representatives) are the appellants herein.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that she filed a suit for redemption. One Velayudhan, son of Kumaran, mortgaged the suit property in favour of one Nallamuthan, son of Poruthiyudayan on 19-11-1076 M. E. The plaintiff purchased the Eastern 88 cents on the Northern end of the suit property from the successor-in-interest of the mortgagor. Defendants-2 to 4 are the heirs of the mortgagee, and under them, the plaintiff is in possession of the entire mortgaged property. Defendants-1, 2 and 4 executed three sub-mortgages for Rs. 504. 94. The plaintiff obtained these sub-mortgage rights on payment and is in possession of the property. The mortgage amount payable for redemption is 200 panams. The value of improvements including the value of building is Rs. 400/ -. The plaintiff has already paid Rs. 504. 94 on account of the sub-mortgages executed by the mortgagees. After setting off the value of improvements and the proportionate mortgage amount, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 76. 80. Defendants-1, 5 and 6 were impleaded as they were reported to have some interest in the mortgage right. The other half of the suit mortgage right was decreed to be redeemed in O. S. No. 336 of 1963 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, and the plaintiff was entitled to redeem half of the suit mortgage and recover possession of the northern half excluding the portion in the possession of the plaintiff from the defendants free of any mortgage money.

(3.) THE case of the first defendant is that he is not a mortgagee as alleged and that he is the jenmi of the suit property. No mortgage subsists with respect to the suit property. The mortgagee under 1076 mortgage did not get possession of the property. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is a void document executed by incompetent persons. The executant of the sale deed in favour of plaintiff is not the successor-in-interest of the mortgagor. The plaintiff has no possession over any portion. The first defendant has perfected title to the property by adverse possession. The plaintiff is not entitled to redeem any portion of the property.