MYLAVARAPPA RANGAPPA NAIDU Vs. BASANNA SIMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiffs obtained a decree for redemption in the Court of the District Munsif of Vizagapatam and the decision was confirmed on appeal. The defendants, who represent the mortgagees, contend that the plaintiffs suit is not maintainable, first, because the plaintiffs have no locus standi to maintain the suit as they are estopped from asserting that their vendor had any title to convey to them; and secondly, because the term of the mortgage has not expired and the suit is premature.

(2.) The lands in dispute were the property of one Anga Narasimhulu who died in 1901 leaving a widow Rangamma and two daughters. After his death the widow put forward Anga Ramaswami as having been adopted to her deceased husband. On 6th April 1902 she executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 1,000 in favour of the first defendant. The mortgagor under this document was her adopted son Ramaswami represented by his guardian the adoptive. mother. On 2nd May 1906, another usufructuary mortgage was executed by the widow as guardian of her adopted son for Rs. 1,400. In this mortgage the prior mortgage of 6th April 1902 was merged. This mortgage, Ex. B, is sought to be redeemed in the present suit. On 2nd July 1910 Rangamma sold the suit property to the plaintiffs father. On 6th July 1910 the adopted son who also had attained majority, sold the property to Vaddadi Ramaswami, who in his turn on 11th January 1912 sold the same property to Mylavarappa Venkata Rao. The plaintiffs father brought a suit in 1910, O.S. No. 61 of 1910 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam, to eject the present appellants after declaring the mortgage in their favour to be invalid. That suit was dismissed, the plaintiff s right to redeem the mortgage being left open and he being given liberty to bring another suit. In 1912 the two daughters instituted a suit O.S. No. 18 of 1912 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam to declare the adoption of Anga Ramaswami invalid. It was held that the adoption was not proved, and this decision was confirmed by the High Court on appeal. One other fact requires to be mentioned, namely, that Rangamma executed a Will on 3rd April 1902 bequeathing all her properties in favour of her adopted son and two daughters one-third to him and two-thirds to the daughters. As Rangamma is still alive, though not a party to the present suit, it is unnecessary to consider the effect of this testamentary disposition.

(3.) On the first point the appellant s Vakil argues that the mortgage having been given in the name of the adopted son, the plaintiffs who claim by purchase from the widow have no equity of redemption in their favour, and the adopted son having sold the property to Vaddadi Ramaswami who again conveyed it to Mylavarapu Venkata Rao, it is suggested that, if any one has the equity of redemption, it must be Mylavarapu Venkata Rao. Again he contends that the widow, having executed the plaint mortgage-deed as guardian of her adopted son, would be estopped from claiming any right of redemption in herself and that the plaintiffs, being representatives of the interest of the widow, are similarly estopped.