PRAKASAM ALIAS PADMINI Vs. RAJAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. She is the daughter of one Shanmugha Mudaliar, who died in the year 1959. The first defendant is the mother of the said Shanmugha Mudaliar and the second defendant is his wife and the mother of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed by her challenging certain alienations made by Shanmugha Mudaliar on various grounds. The said Shanmugha Mudaliar had executed a document dated 5 -5 -1948 in favour of one Papammal, whose legal representatives are defendants 3 to 6 in the suit. In respect of this transaction, the plaintiff's case was that it was executed at a time when the said Shanmugha Mudaliar was insane, that it was therefore null and void and that no right or interest was created in favour of Papammal. Alternatively it was contended that the document is a mortgage by conditional sale or it is a sale with a right of reconveyance and that in either case the plaintiff is entitled to redeem or to get a reconveyance of the same on payment of the sale consideration of Rs. 8,500 as recited in the document itself. The next transaction which was challenged in the suit is a mortgage dated 23 -8 -1946 executed by Shanmugha Mudaliar in favour of the 10th defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The 10th defendant has assigned the said mortgage in favour of the 9th defendant on 25 -11 -1952. The 9th defendant filed a suit, O.S. 785 of 1959 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, obtained a decree on the mortgage and in execution of that decree he himself had purchased that property. This mortgage in favour of the 10th defendant was challenged on the ground that it was executed by Shanmugha Mudaliar at a time when he was insane and that therefore the said mortgage was invalid and could not have been enforced.

(2.) THE plaintiff also challenged certain other transactions in favour of defendants 7, 8 and 11. Since the appellant did not advance any argument relating to the transactions in respect of these defendants, we confirm the finding of the court below in regard to the same and therefore no detailed discussion is necessary.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the property conveyed under Ex. B -2 is an extent of 7 acres, 94 cents of valuable land, that even at the time of the sale, the property was worth much more than Rs. 30,000, but, the consideration shown in the document was only Rs. 8,500, and that neither a patta transfer application was filed at the time of sale, nor was patta transferred till August 1962. Though the liability of reconveyance is after a period of 7 years and within a period of 10 years from the date of sale, the consideration payable is the same sum of Rs. 8,500, recited in the document, irrespective of the market value of the land as on the date of reconveyance. Further, the document also uses the expression (original in Tamil omitted -Ed.) The word... means 'principal'. The document thus states that on payment of the principal amount of Rs. 8,500, the property will have to be reconveyed. These facts, according to the learned counsel, clearly establish that the document is a mortgage by conditional sale and not an absolute sale in favour of Papammal.