TMT PAVAYAMMAL Vs. V VIDHYA ALIAS DIVYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners in both the revisions are the judgment-debtors/defendants 1 to 3 in O. S. No. 737 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Attur. Both the revisions are filed against the orders of return of R. E. A. SR. Nos. 3982 and 3981 of 2001 in R. E. A. Nos. 24 of 2001 and 17 of 1997 respectively in R. E. P. No. 19 of 1997 in O. S. No. 737 of 1988, as per orders of return dated 12. 12. 2001. R. E. A. SR. No. 3982 of 2001 is filed to set aside the order dated 20. 4. 2001 in R. E. A. No. 24 of 2001 and R. E. A. SR. No. 3981 of 2001 is filed to set aside the ex parte order dated 7. 9. 2000 in R. E. A. No. 17 of 1997.

(2.) THE plaintiff Rajeswari Ammal, wife of K. Ragothama Chettiar filed the suit O. S. No. 737 of 1988 in the Sub Court, Salem on 6. 10. 1988 to recover a sum of Rs. 23,562. 50, due on the suit mortgage deed dated 4. 9. 1979 for Rs. 13,000/- executed by the defendants 1 to 3, viz. , Pavayammal and her son Balan alias Raman for himself and on behalf of his minor son Chandrsekaran.

(3.) THE suit was resisted in the written statement filed by the second defendant adopted by the defendants 1 and 3 that it is only the plaintiff's husband Ragothama Chettiar, who paid Rs. 6,000/- as advance to the defendants in respect of the premises leased to him and owned by the defendants and it is he, who made further sum and obtained the suit mortgage deed in the name of his wife. The defendants paid Rs. 20,000/- by demand draft in July, 1987. Further, the rent was endorsed to be paid to him upto June, 1988 from N. T. C. at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. Thus, totally, the defendants paid Rs. 28,670. 22 and the plaintiff's husband also promised to return the mortgage deed, but he did not do so and filed the suit after causing lawyer notice which was suitably replied. Though the defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement as stated above, since they remained ex parte during trial, an ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 7. 1. 1992 and final decree was passed on 9. 9. 1992 since no payment was made pursuant to passing of preliminary decree.