PODIKUTTY Vs. N RAHIATH BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 3 to 7 are the appellants, in this second appeal. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for redemption of a mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed on 13.10.1970. According to the preliminary decree, the plaintiff was to deposit a sum of Rs.96.25 as mortgage money. Alleging that by virtue of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1938 the mortgage money got scaled down to zero, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1142 of 1980 for passing of final decree. In that application, the plaintiff stated as follows:

(2.) During the pendency of the application, the plaintiff sold her interest to one Madhavan Nadar, who got impleaded as the second petitioner in the said application.

(3.) As there was no dispute with regard to the entitlement of the defendants to the value of the improvements made by them, a Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court to ascertain the value of the improvements. The Commissioner submitted a report in which he valued the buildings at Rs.3460-11 and the trees at Rs.2,498-59. The trail Court accepted the report and fixed the total value of improvements at Rs.5,958-70 p. The plaintiff was directed to deposit the said amount. The mortgagees/defendants were not satisfied with the amount awarded by the trial Court. When the appeal was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge, he set aside the report of the Commissioner on 6.7.1983 and appointed another Commissioner to assess the value of improvements. The Commissioner appointed by the appellate Court submitted his report, marked as Ex.C2, with a plan attached thereto, marked as Ex.C3. The second Commissioner valued the buildings at Rs.6584-59 and the trees at Rs.3537-20P. The plaintiff and the purchaser from her filed objection to the Commissioners report. The main objection raised was that the Commissioner was related to the mortgagees and that they came to know of the same only when the Commissioner visited the suit property. The plaintiff had also raised certain objections regarding the valuation made by the Commissioner.