NAINAR MOHAMMAD ROWTHER Vs. MINOR VIIAYASANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage executed by one Easanapothi for himself and as guardian of his minor sons in favour of the 1st defendant and his brother Khader Mohideen Rowther on 18.6.1971 under Ex.A-3 for a sum of Rs. 5,000. It is admitted that Khader Mohideen Rowther had assigned his share to the 1st defendant by a document dated 14.6.1974 marked as Ex.A-4, The plaintiffs are claiming under two sale deeds dated 3.12.1975 marked as Exs.A-1 and A-2 obtained from Easanapothi for himself and as guardian of his minor sons. Easanapothi got a life interest in the property in a partition deed in the family, dated 6.4.1960, and the vested remainder was with his minor sons.

(2.) The main defence raised in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant which was adopted by the 2nd defendant was that the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs were not valid as they were not for the benefit of the minors or the necessity of the family. The 1st defendant also raised a contention that he had made improvements for the value of Rs. 2,000 and that he should be compensated therefor. In the written statement, there is an averment in paragraph 4 that the 1st defendant was in possession of the mortgaged property for 30 years and that he was doing business therein by investing huge capital. In paragraph 7 of the written statement, the 1st defendant stated that in Door No.66 of East Car Street, the 2nd defendant was doing business in the name and style of Mohan Biscuit Stall for about 30 years and that the 2nd defendant was a necessary party to the suit. It was thereafter the 2nd defendant was impleaded in the suit as a party. He did not, however, choose to file any separate written statement, but adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant.

(3.) The trial Court framed three issues as follows: